Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump 11 point lead in Iowa

New CNN poll has Trump 37 and Cruz 26. The momentum clearly favors Trump.

Once Trump wins in Iowa, he likely runs the board and wins every state. Ironic that the MSM was so sure Trump would magically disappear and instead he wins a lot bigger than Romney or McCain.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 21, 2016 at 11:56 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

111 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It’s an open question how genuinely sure they really were, and to what extent they aimed to manufacture consent to their narrative with a disingenuous act of certainty.

    rzg

    January 22, 2016 at 12:17 am

  2. The media was sure that Reagan would lead us into WWIII. That school busing would bring black IQ to parity with whites. That there would be catastrophic global cooling and then later catastrophic global warming. That multiculturalism would be our strength. That heritable mechanisms would never be discovered to be the source of intelligence differences. That Africa would be a thriving first world continent by now. That the Rosenbergs would be proved innocent. That women would be winning prestigious mathematics prizes by now. That drug use would change society in a good way, opening the doors of perception. That we’d be visiting Mars. That movies would just keep getting better and better. That music would keep getting better and better. That we’d be living in geodesic domes. There’s a lot of things that seem ironic when looking at what past for conventional wisdom by the press in both the distant and recent past.

    Curle

    January 22, 2016 at 12:58 am

    • “That movies would just keep getting better and better. ”

      Well I would argue that movie production ability and cinematic quality is at an all time high. But other than that, I can’t argue with you.

      I would add that much the media were in the bag for Communism, retards.

      Dan

      January 22, 2016 at 9:26 am

      • Plots got worse. Acting quality and technical quality are at an all time high.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 22, 2016 at 9:41 am

      • 21st century film has been pretty disappointing. 2000-2009 was pretty great, especially the first half. 90s were probably still better and no way film has had a better decade since the 50s.

        chairman

        January 22, 2016 at 6:54 pm

      • I thought one of the things was that the financial risk makes new movies that aren’t an adaptation or a sequel impossible.

        SFG

        January 22, 2016 at 11:19 pm

      • One subtitled black and white pot boiler by Akira Kurosawa is worth the entire output of Hollywood for the last ten years.

        martin_2

        January 23, 2016 at 6:28 am

      • I’m fluent in a couple of foreign languages and have no interest in watching a film in either of them. Watching a movie in a language I don’t speak every day breaks the “suspension of disbelief” necessary for me to enjoy it. Having to read subtitles is even worse. In fact, I’d rather read a book written in another language than watch a movie with subtitles in English. I think people who pretend to like artsy foreign films are posing. Leon should do a post on watching foreign films as status signalling.

        destructure

        January 23, 2016 at 1:25 pm

      • destructure, you didn’t like Apocalypto? I thought it was quite good.

        slithy toves

        January 24, 2016 at 10:22 am

      • slithy toves — Apocalypto was alright. It’s also the exception that proves the rule. It wasn’t a foreign film someone slapped English subtitles on. It was an American film that specifically used the extinct language of the people portrayed in the film. It was deliberately written and scripted to compensate for that. And it was particularly not like the kind of obscure pseudo-intellectual garbage SWPL posers name-check trying to impress others.

        destructure

        January 24, 2016 at 10:01 pm

      • @destructure

        I have no status, but I like foreign films.

        Yakov

        January 24, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryam_Mirzakhani

      admittedly she’s an outlier.

      slithy toves

      January 22, 2016 at 10:11 am

    • “The media was sure that Reagan would lead us into WWIII. That school busing would bring black IQ to parity with whites. That there would be catastrophic global cooling and then later catastrophic global warming. That multiculturalism would be our strength. That heritable mechanisms would never be discovered to be the source of intelligence differences. That Africa would be a thriving first world continent by now. That the Rosenbergs would be proved innocent. That women would be winning prestigious mathematics prizes by now. That drug use would change society in a good way, opening the doors of perception. That we’d be visiting Mars. That movies would just keep getting better and better. That music would keep getting better and better. That we’d be living in geodesic domes. There’s a lot of things that seem ironic when looking at what past for conventional wisdom by the press in both the distant and recent past.”

      great comment, curle. propaganda, all of it.

      reminds me of the famous paul graham essay “what you can’t say”. in case you or others haven’t read it, here it is:

      http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

      “It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise.”

      rivelino

      January 23, 2016 at 2:34 pm

      • Thanks for the link.

        Curle

        January 24, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    • This is a great comment. I would add two more: That peak oil was just around the corner. That Malthus was right about overpopulation (but this one needs a whole new comment).

      vdorta

      January 24, 2016 at 4:17 pm

  3. I’m still not sure about IA.

    Nate Silver, dbag that he is, pointed out that the CNN IA poll assumes a turnout of 300k+, almost 3 times 2012. No way the turnout is that high.

    If turnout is 40 percent, matching Obama v Hillary, then only 240k would caucus.

    http://theiowarepublican.com/2015/trumps-impact-on-caucus-turnout-could-be-yuuuuge/
    http://theiowarepublican.com/2015/iowa-caucus-perspective-ground-game-edition/

    Trump’s own campaign says they want 48 thousand. That means they expect the turnout to be ~145,000. Basically their plan is to get 20 thousand votes, or about 18 percent, of traditional caucus goers and bring in 28 thousand new voters. Sounds like a tall order to me.

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 22, 2016 at 1:16 am

    • Trump is getting a huge turnout at his rallies, right? Doesn’t that show the same commitment (to travel somewhere and stay for a while) that is required for caucusing?

      Dan

      January 22, 2016 at 9:29 am

      • Yes it does.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 22, 2016 at 9:42 am

      • I think turn out is Trump’s strong point. He gets people to stand in long lines in the cold just to hear him speak when it doesn’t matter. They can hear him at home through media.

        That tells me even more will get out and vote when the effort matters.

        Great Coulter article here. Worth a separate post on Glenn Beck’s mental problems.

        http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-20.html#read_more

        We have never had total war against a candidate like we’re seeing with Donald Trump. All elements of national media are uniting to stop him.

        Rifleman

        January 22, 2016 at 3:17 pm

      • Nate Silver, dbag that he is, pointed out that the CNN IA poll assumes a turnout of 300k+, almost 3 times 2012. No way the turnout is that high.

        Of course Republican turnout will be higher than 2012; that year GOP voters were disappointed in their choice of candidates.

        What other endorsements can boost Trump’s standing with Iowa Evangelicals? Tom Brady?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 22, 2016 at 6:56 pm

  4. This is wacky. What, no skanks in Japan?

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article55804480.html

    “26 percent of men have no sexual experience by age 34”

    Curle

    January 22, 2016 at 1:44 am

    • I would have already blogged about that if I were home.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 22, 2016 at 9:09 am

    • Skanks don’t improve the sexual prospects of betas. As a beta myself, I know that as hard as it is to persuade a virgin into bed, it’s much easier for me than it is to persuade a very experienced woman that I can be alpha enough to compare to her parade of paramours.

      https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/sluts-are-not-less-discriminating/

      owentt

      January 22, 2016 at 9:22 am

      • The virgin wants to be courted for a long time which is what betas are good at. Premarital sex was bad for betas.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 22, 2016 at 9:40 am

      • It’s all about initiative. When I was in college I had a friend from India who was incredibly smart, but he was a greasy, unattractive CS major. His persistence was the stuff of legend, and he had a surprising (to us) amount of success.

        He probably also still holds the Cornell record for the most times ever rejected (including by my sister while she was visiting me — he hit on her right under my nose!) but nobody keeps track of that part.

        Dan

        January 22, 2016 at 9:55 am

      • Well, when I say skank I’m referring to a gal who enjoys sleeping with men and isn’t very picky and probably isn’t particularly great looking. I’d consider me and most of my friends betas but I only know one who hasn’t had women, typically several, offer themselves. The gals may vary in attractiveness (think Lena Dunham and even lower), but it was never considered a dishonor to sleep with a less than stunning woman (except for religious reasons, of course). I can’t believe the alphas of this world are wasting much of their time on the Lena Dunhams. And I can’t believe the betas are choosing celibacy over lowered standards.

        Curle

        January 22, 2016 at 11:38 am

      • Both parties could be disappointed..

        Mrs Stitch

        January 22, 2016 at 1:43 pm

      • “The gals may vary in attractiveness (think Lena Dunham and even lower)”

        There are very few of those in Japan, the land of sixes and sevens but few fives (or eights). That’s because of the rarity of any trace of plumpness and the general East Asian small sigma where seldom is anyone an extreme high or low achiever in anything.

        On the other hand, Japanese girls are much less likely to affirmatively offer themselves. And if they did they would apologize for it before and after.

        owentt

        January 22, 2016 at 7:25 pm

    • If those men are single (and I assume that they all are if they’re virgins) then so what? This means fewer children born outside of marriage, fewer people with venereal disease, fewer chances to waste their time with the wrong woman just so they can get laid, fewer distractions if they are concentrating on education or career. The quest for sex often leads people to make stupid decisions. The closer a society gets to a “sex within marriage” norm, the better off it will be. Notice I said “closer.” We know, of course, that this is an ideal, not something that can ever be totally followed by everyone.

      Maryk

      January 22, 2016 at 9:45 am

      • Ninety-eight percent of Japanese babies are born with benefit of wedlock, but Japan is nevertheless famous for its epidemics of social diseases. Perhaps your social model isn’t sufficiently creative imagining how that could happen.

        owentt

        January 22, 2016 at 7:28 pm

      • “Ninety-eight percent of Japanese babies are born with benefit of wedlock, but Japan is nevertheless famous for its epidemics of social diseases”

        I’m not familiar enough with Japanese society to comment on it’s conditions. Obviously children having fathers doesn’t guarantee wholesome living. And I was clear in my post that there will always be some vice in every society. I think fathers are a requirement for general social health, but they aren’t ALL that is required. Are you arguing in favor of illegitimacy imagining that a society can “creatively” find a way to make up for the absence of fathers in children’s lives? I’m not sure what your point is.

        Maryk

        January 23, 2016 at 12:36 am

      • One of my HVAC suppliers mkoves traveling. So he and his wife went to Japan this year and he says that they have 2 million prostitutes over there. He is good with numbers, whom do they have them for? I think for all these lonely japs who slave away their lives.

        Yakov

        January 23, 2016 at 9:15 pm

    • Feminism kills ALL societies.

      fakeemail

      January 22, 2016 at 11:37 am

      • Feminism kills only feminism. Women who don’t reproduce won’t have their behaviors represented in the subsequent generation so barren feminists are a problem that solves itself. Thanks, Darwin.

        owentt

        January 22, 2016 at 7:30 pm

      • They persuade other women to carry on their ideas. The ideas are appealing to bright but unattractive women who are annoyed that their achievements don’t bring them as much in the sexual market as they would if they were male.

        SFG

        January 22, 2016 at 11:22 pm

    • 26% of men is just about the percentage of men that are totally undesirable and/or lack the social skills to connect with anyone. No women are going to miss their absence from the dating pool.

      CamelCaseRob

      January 22, 2016 at 1:43 pm

      • Really? 26? I would estimate the percentage as being far lower than that. Are you talking about whites? Most straight men desire some kind of female companionship and will eventually seek out some kind of relationship with a woman – even if it means improving their social skills to do it. Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you mean?

        Maryk

        January 22, 2016 at 9:30 pm

      • I wouldn’t read too much into the whole ‘every supporter of the candidate I don’t like is stupid’ thing. Usually most major candidates have a range of support.

        SFG

        January 22, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    • Someone do the virginal 26% a favor and reassure them they’re not missing much.

      silberstreak

      January 25, 2016 at 5:47 pm

  5. No point in counting that bird before it’s hatched. The Real Clear Politics polling average, which factors in the CNN poll, has Trump up only 2.7 points. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html

    The main thing is, nobody knows how Trump supporters are going to react to the caucus system.

    Greg Pandatshang

    January 22, 2016 at 8:19 am

    • I don’t know how the RCP averages work, but unless you weigh towards the most recent results, averages are only good as history.

      vdorta

      January 22, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    • Look at the dates of those polls though. Trump is leading the 4 most recent ones.

      Dave Pinsen

      January 22, 2016 at 5:20 pm

  6. Fantastic! then Palin will get a high level post in government.

    Lion of the Turambar

    January 22, 2016 at 8:28 am

    • Head of the EPA, naturally, to squeeze SWPLs firmly in the scrotum.

      Dan

      January 22, 2016 at 10:02 am

      • They’d probably enjoy it. SWPL’s are never as happy as when they can status signal by complaining about some pc issue like the environment.

        destructure

        January 23, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    • She couldn’t do any harm — and might do some good — as secretary of education.

      CamelCaseRob

      January 22, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    • She wont.

      Rifleman

      January 22, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    • Ambassador to Russia. She can see it from her house, and she can honeytrap Putin.

      SFG

      January 22, 2016 at 11:26 pm

      • Palin didn’t say that. Tina Fey did. You can see Russian islands from US islands in the Bering Sea. Palin isn’t brilliant, but she’s smarter than most of her critics, including Lion

        bob sykes

        January 23, 2016 at 4:52 pm

      • Palin is young and energetic, she should get something on her level. That’s fair.

        Yaakov

        January 23, 2016 at 7:17 pm

  7. There’s an easy way for pollsters/media to make it look like Trump is doing better or worse if they want. There’s a huge difference in “likely to vote” and “past voters” in these polls. Trump dominates polls that measure the former, is less dominant on the latter.

    The polls that show Trump doing bad, or more precisely “less good”, are the ones that only poll people who have voted in a Republican primary before. The polls that include new voters say they’ll vote this time around… he is landsliding.

    So that’s the question: Will the new voters actually come to the polls? I am.

    jackmcg

    January 22, 2016 at 9:34 am

    • The polls that include new voters say they’ll vote this time around… he is landsliding.

      That’s the key. Too many people just hate the establishment in both parties and think things are rigged. And that’s true.

      Imagine the Republicans WITHOUT Trump!!!! Unbearable.

      Cruz is OK but not for politics. He belongs on the Supreme Court and President Trump will put him there.

      Rifleman

      January 22, 2016 at 3:26 pm

      • I don’t think so. If Cruz were a true Constitutional originalist, in the mold of Clarence Thomas — the kind Trump has said he wants to appoint — , he’d know he’s ineligible for POTUS and would drop out of the race.

        Plus, he’s sealed is his birth records for some reason so he’s got a number of big red flags.

        Andrew E.

        January 22, 2016 at 9:00 pm

      • I don’t think so. If Cruz were a true Constitutional originalist, in the mold of Clarence Thomas — the kind Trump has said he wants to appoint — , he’d know he’s ineligible for POTUS and would drop out of the race.

        Let it go already. Cruz was an American citizen from birth because his mother was.

        Rifleman

        January 22, 2016 at 11:06 pm

  8. And what the heck is going on with the Democrats? Sanders is now ahead in Iowa in a CNN poll (but it was a very small sample size). Sanders is way ahead in New Hampshire, and he’ll probably win Nevada. So Hillary may very well lose the first three elections of the season, then go on to South Carolina. Will the tide turn for Bernie at that point and will he then keep the momentum, winning in a lot more states? With only two viable candidates (O’Malley is below the margin of error in most polls), there won’t be any chance of a brokered convention.

    If Bernie does start to win a lot, though, do Democrats get nervous? The Republicans haven’t really started to attack Sanders yet (and they shouldn’t, let this play out). But if Sanders somehow gets the nomination, there’s so much material to blast him with. Some of it is just nonsensical, like his tax plans, health care plans or plans for the US Postal Service to start up a new business where they’d be in the business of branch banking, accepting deposits and making loans to the general public. Not to mention that he’d be 75 at the time he took office.

    If Sanders somehow manages to defeat Trump (I can’t see Sanders defeating anyone else), and becomes President against a Republican congress or at least not an insane congress, what happens? He obviously can’t get much of his legislative agenda through? But instead of breaking up the big banks, can regulators just rewrite the laws on capital requirements? With complete control of the regulator agencies, and probably a bunch of unhinged people running them, that could do serious damage. Not to mention the crazies he’d pick for courts.

    I really had though Sanders would be sort of like Ron Paul. A silly old guy in the margins, getting a few percent, moving the debate to tackle issues others didn’t want to address. I’m not saying he’s going to win, but he’s not a marginal candidate any longer.

    If Sanders loses, but not by much, and Hillary does sneak in with the nomination, do the Democrats start attacking each other. Do the Sandernistas start attacking minority voters for not voting in their self interests?

    A few weeks ago, I thought all the drama was on the Republican side, but it looks like the Democrats are getting some real big drama real soon.

    GMR

    January 22, 2016 at 9:39 am

    • All the crazy stuff that works in other advanced democracies? Sanders would be fine if he were better on immigration and racial issues.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      January 22, 2016 at 5:16 pm

      • All the crazy stuff that works in other advanced democracies?

        And fails in underdeveloped countries? Correlation doesn’t imply causation.

        destructure

        January 22, 2016 at 8:25 pm

      • The USA is more diverse than, say, Denmark, but we had postal banking in the past and it wasn’t too big a problem. Similarly, just about every other country has some sort of national health insurance, and single-payer would probably be more efficient by wiping out the insurance companies. I agree taxes will have to go up.

        SFG

        January 22, 2016 at 11:25 pm

    • Events in this election cycle have already disproved the elite consensus, that, no matter how odious, a candidate with the support of big donors can win. Jeb Bush was too odious for the public to swallow. It is starting to look like Hilary Clinton might be as well.

      If either Trump or Sanders win their respective primaries, it will be the largest rebuke to the elite since Ronald Reagan’s election.

      verylongaccountname

      January 22, 2016 at 5:34 pm

      • This goes back much farther than Reagan. Reagan had already been governor of California. He was always favored to win the primary from the beginning, and had nearly knocked of incumbent President Gerald Ford in the 1976 Republican primary. Reagan’s nomination was a surprise to nobody.

        At this late stage, Trump has zero endorsements from any governors, senators or members of the US house, even though close to a hundred of them have endorsed a GOP candidate.

        Dan

        January 23, 2016 at 10:35 am

      • … it will be the largest rebuke to the elite since Ronald Reagan’s election.

        Sadly, Reagan picked a member of the so called “elite” as his VP and paved the way for the scum to regain control through the Bush family.

        Rifleman

        January 23, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    • Bernie can’t win the primaries because black and hispanic voters will never support him. Blacks hate hate hate white liberals. Hillary will also play the Jew card against Sanders if she’s has too. Obama will come out and personally campaign with Hillary if the election starts to look even remotely competitive. The Democratic establishment would prefer any Republican besides Cruz or Trump to Sanders and will move heaven and earth to stop him. And, unlike the GOP establishment, the Dems are neither divided or incompetent.

      The thing to understand about black voters is that they vote for who they are told to vote for. They trust their horrible, corrupt, sell out leaders and will do whatever those leaders say. Obama was the exception to that and the exception was only made after Obama beat Hillary amongst white voters.

      IF Sanders wins IA and NH, blacks will not take it as a sign to take a second look at Sanders but rather that they are under siege from white liberals, who as I stated above, they hate hate hate.

      Otis the Sweaty

      January 23, 2016 at 1:56 am

      • Otis the Sweaty is right that blacks hate white liberals, but only because blacks hate all Caucasians except Bill Clinton. Stuff Black People Hate: First, police. Second, white people.

        Mark Caplan

        January 23, 2016 at 7:06 am

      • Hillary will also play the Jew card against Sanders if she’s has too. Obama will come out and personally campaign with Hillary if the election starts to look even remotely competitive.

        Hillary will play up Sanders’ opposition to slave reparations. Of course, since she has to keep the general election in view, and, not being stupid, don’t expect her to explicitly endorse reparations. Instead she will say something along the lines of ‘we need “economic redress” for the legacy of slavery’, while Sanders doesn’t. Combined with Bill Clinton’s long-standing relationships with black leaders, this should win the nomination for her once states with large black electorates begin voting.

        But securing the nomination will probably take longer than she anticipated. Trump on the other hand looks set to lock up the primary early even if he comes in second in Iowa; to say nothing of him winning Iowa.

        While he waits for the Democrats to conclude their fight, Trump hold off on attacking Hillary until she defeats Sanders considering she’s the most more vulnerable general election candidate ,,.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 23, 2016 at 11:36 am

      • Otis the Sweaty is right that blacks hate white liberals, but only because blacks hate all Caucasians except Bill Clinton.

        Blacks are happy to vote for a white liberal as long as they’re promised enough favors. When deciding between two liberal white Democrats, blacks line up for the one who has the best connections and history of delivering taxpayer loot. This means Hillary will take the black primary vote.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 23, 2016 at 11:42 am

      • I don’t think Obama would ever campaign for Hillary in the primaries. I get the impression that Hillary is a kind of Ted Cruz-like figure within the Dem establishment, and has only been tolerated this time because it was just assumed she would gallop to the nomination and there was no point opposing the inevitable. It’s worth remembering that part of the reason Obama was successful in 2008 was because several key Dem establishment types, including Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy, came out as pro-Obama at critical moments.

        Now that Hillary seems entirely beatable in the Democrat primary, the establishment will not flock to Sanders, who is very much the Democrats’ Trump in the sense of being a partisan Johnny-come-lately of dubious loyalty to core party principles (socialism is not a core Democrat principle, despite GOP propaganda). Rather, I think calls for a late-entry, hyper-establishment candidate like Biden or Kerry will become louder.

        Peepul

        January 23, 2016 at 12:27 pm

      • Obama will come out and personally campaign with Hillary

        Nah. He hates Hillary. He will work to keep Sanders in the game until the convention, where he will unveil a “compromise candidate” to shut Hillary out. Thus she will reap the bitter fruits of running as “Obama’s third term”.

        Tarl

        January 23, 2016 at 2:46 pm

      • Hillary will also play the Jew card against Sanders if she’s has too.

        Sweaty, reign in the Jewish male paranoia.

        Hillary’s daughter is a Jewish convert, right? And she married a Jew and I think Hillary’s only grandchild is being raised Jewish.

        Rifleman

        January 23, 2016 at 3:39 pm

      • Rifle: has nothing to do with me being Jewish, knowing Hillary, would you put it past her? Also, all is fair in politics and I don’t see any moral problem with her playing the Jew card against Bernie if that is what she needs to win.

        re black voters: They don’t hate whites. They hate white liberals. Big difference. And when I say white liberals I don’t mean SJW types, but rather Bernie Sanders “economic liberals” types. Blacks HATE those type of liberals.

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 23, 2016 at 4:12 pm

      • …knowing Hillary, would you put it past her? Also, all is fair in politics and I don’t see any moral problem with her playing the Jew card against Bernie if that is what she needs to win.

        Hillary wont do anything to outright offend blacks, White feminists, gays or Jews. Not as a group. So there’s no Jew card to play.

        The people who don’t want Sanders either –

        1) already know he’s a Jew and don’t need to be “carded”

        or

        2) don’t like him for many other reasons.

        The people who want Sanders either –

        1) already know he’s a Jew and don’t need to be “carded”

        or

        2) didn’t know and don’t care because they like his positions and style.

        The Hillary team is dumb and insular but not that dumb. And Jewish idiot Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to keep things focused on the War on Women and the “every non – White man/non gay is a victim of Trump the Nazi!” theme.

        Rifleman

        January 23, 2016 at 7:34 pm

      • It’s one thing to know that Bernie’s Jewish and it’s another thing to use Bernie’s Jewishness to rally downscale blacks and hispanics to support Hillary. Would it make much of a difference? Probably not. Might help a little on the margins. Would Hillary be stupid and desperate enough to use it anyway, absolutely.

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 23, 2016 at 9:22 pm

      • It’s one thing to know that Bernie’s Jewish and it’s another thing to use Bernie’s Jewishness to rally downscale blacks and hispanics to support Hillary. Would it make much of a difference? Probably not. Might help a little on the margins. Would Hillary be stupid and desperate enough to use it anyway, absolutely.

        And that’s the Jewish male paranoia I’m talking about. You think Hillary lives in a bubble with no Jews as advisers or that she doesn’t mind offending Jews, gays, blacks or feminists??

        Guess who are almost all of her rich Hollywood donors? Who are a major part of the Democrat donor class, the liberal pundits, the liberal activists? Who? We all know who they are and Hillary will in no way try to offend them. Plus she doesn’t want to anymore than she wants to offend gays or feminists or muslims or blacks.

        Her ENEMY are White heterosexual men who are not flaming liberals.

        She wants to rally her supporters against them, not against some ultra jewy old socialist from NYC and hippieland Vermont!

        She want to beat him but not trash old Jews, hippies, people from Vermont or socialists.

        Rifleman

        January 24, 2016 at 12:46 am

      • Might help a little on the margins. Would Hillary be stupid and desperate enough to use it anyway, absolutely.

        I can see her doing this. Her best strategy is to buy off the minority vote. I expect her to have an ‘unaffiliated’ group run push polls to blacks in South Carolina about Sanders’ being Jewish. But I doubt she’ll do this except to a limited extent. She will contrast herself by dog whistling Sanders’ opposition to slave reparations, without her explicitly saying she endorses reparations.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 24, 2016 at 11:13 am

      • It’s now very unlikely Cruz will be Trump’s choice for vice president.

        I suggest Trump look at Scott Brown for VP because he will pull similar demographics that Trump now appeals to. As a New England Republican he won’t turnoff swing voters with social conservatism, he attracts prole whites in the Midwest with his anti-immigration positions, there are no economic or foreign policy differences between him and Trump, and he can claim Tea party credentials for having fought against Obamacare. He’s also young enough to succeed Trump after 8 years.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 24, 2016 at 11:26 am

      • “Blacks hate hate hate white liberals.”

        Really? Well it’s funny then how 90%+ of black votes go to white Liberals as long as they aren’t facing a black opponent. And those vote numbers have held steady for decades.

        peterike

        January 24, 2016 at 2:24 pm

      • Hillary’s Jewish supporters would not be offended at all by Hillary playing the Jew card against Sanders as long as she did it through her surrogates and denounced it. In fact, her massive Jewish support would give her cover for some Jew baiting.

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 24, 2016 at 3:42 pm

      • @Rifleman 3:39

        You are incorrect about Chelsea. She is methodist and so is her child.

        Trump’s daughter converted.

        ScarletNumber

        January 25, 2016 at 11:54 am

    • Is America ready for a president who’s fallen and can’t get up?

      silberstreak

      January 25, 2016 at 6:02 pm

  9. you ‘murikans don’t even know, how much you need TheDonald.

    he seems the only one able and willing to take on that herculean task to clean that augeas’s stables of beltway/sjw/democrat/GOPnetwork dreck.

    imo

    January 22, 2016 at 2:55 pm

  10. Looks like Trump’s recent attacks on Cruz have worked.

    Lion, are you travelling to avoid the blizzard hitting NYC?

    Tom

    January 22, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    • The blizzard is an unfortunate annoyance.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 22, 2016 at 7:07 pm

      • Blizzard is cool! I love it! I was supposed to fly out to Israel tonight, but am snowed it by my mother’s and the flight is cancelled. Gonna chill for a couple of days with my books and working out in the gym. Hopefully will be able to rebook, if not will just chill for a week here. This is good life!

        Mates, you are all supposed to be high IQ, so why are you still discussing Trump? He is the next president of these United States of America! It all over for them. Enjoy the snow, but don’t you believe Trump either. He isn’t going to make American great again, he is going to make it greater then it ever was!

        Yakov

        January 23, 2016 at 6:47 pm

      • http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/index.html

        True! Not gonna lose my vote no matter what. Trump is a genius!

        Yakov

        January 23, 2016 at 9:24 pm

      • Keeps certain folk penned up for a few days. Fine by me.

        Mobutu

        January 23, 2016 at 11:47 pm

      • Paint that blizzard!

        jef

        January 24, 2016 at 2:39 am

    • Say hi to Ally for us.

      Curle

      January 23, 2016 at 12:13 am

    • How Trump has so handily dispatched each major opponent is truly a thing of beauty. He started off totally destroying Jeb’s campaign. Then Carson started challenging him and he made that speech about the knife story in his book, really killed him there, and Carson was effectively no more. Now Cruz came up and Trump has taken him apart about his citizenship and funding from banks, relentlessly. This general election is gonna be something.

      chairman

      January 23, 2016 at 11:07 am

  11. I commented some months ago that Trump needed over 40% support to avoid a combination against him. He now has that. How this will translate into delegates is the next question.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/latest-reuters-rolling-poll-4/

    Robert

    January 23, 2016 at 6:30 am

  12. This is the start of the coming apart that the alt-right has long figured was due. The lies cannot hold. My personal favorite has been the utterly laughable narrative that Bruce Jenner is a woman, which cannot be questioned by anyone in America, lest the “Human Rights Campaign” (LOL!) destroys their lives. I don’t particularly care that he parades around with his fantasy, but if the blindingly obvious truth is so intolerable for something so trivial, how can we as a society hope to face much more difficult realities?

    Dan

    January 23, 2016 at 10:53 am

    • Dan, is there any chance that you will run for president someday? I just want to know so I can offer to be your campaign manager!

      Maryk

      January 23, 2016 at 12:02 pm

  13. destructure

    January 23, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    • We probably would have said the same thing about Trump 6 months ago.

      I think Bloomberg wants to win. Whether the guy famous for banning guns and 36-ounce sodas (the second of which I heartily support) actually can in the heartland is another question.

      SFG

      January 23, 2016 at 3:06 pm

      • Bloomberg would get half the D vote and about one quarter of the R vote. 90% of people in the heartland don’t even know who the hell is he is. He would be nothing but a spoiler who would hand Trump the election. For that reason I do not expect that he will run.

        B.T.D.T.

        January 23, 2016 at 8:03 pm

      • For that reason I do not expect that he will run.

        I suspect he’s more committed than you give him credit form.

        Though Bloomberg would be assisting Trump, the ex-mayor yearns for the ego boost and media spotlight his candidacy would bring him. Especially in an election year that will be a media sensation. What could the Democrats offer him that would compensate him for forgoing this vanity project? He stopped caring about money decades ago; he’s already won major elections in NYC. And he’s not used to having others say ‘no’ to him. He’s got nothing left to prove except running for the big chair.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 24, 2016 at 11:09 am

    • He would split the anti-gun, open borders vote from the Dems. It could turn the entire map red.

      For that reason, he won’t run. He’ll be smart enough to figure that out.

      jackmcg

      January 23, 2016 at 5:21 pm

      • A Jew cannot and shouldn’t be president of the US. He stands no chance, anyway.

        Yakov

        January 23, 2016 at 7:15 pm

      • There are those who say Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and three or four post-WWII presidents were not Christian in any real sense of the word. (John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress would name them, respectively, as Mr Pliable, Mr Obstinate, Mr Talkative, Mr Talkative, Mr Worldly-Wise, and Mr Worldly-Wise). There is no reason why we could not have a good-hearted Jewish President who loves America more than the last few Presidents did. Bloomberg of course is not that guy, but everybody knows that. Yes he would only run for personal reasons to be a spoiler.

        howitzer daniel

        January 23, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    • I think Bloomberg is too pragmatic to want to be a spoiler. If he got in, he’d be trying to win.

      Most of all, because he could only spoil things for the Democrat candidate. He’s a liberal and wouldn’t do that. He’ll poll to see if he can get enough GOP votes based on fiscal efficiency, polling will show he can’t, and so he won’t run.

      jackmcg

      January 24, 2016 at 12:40 am

      • Bloomberg as President — The entire country is balkanized into an expensive SWPL land, where the poor areas are reserved for proles and the NAM underclass, pushed far away from civilization. His command center is his apartment on the Upper East Side, and he refuses to live in the White House.

        The only good thing coming from him, is stop & frisk, and if he decides to turn Detroit into the next Manhattan.

        JS

        January 24, 2016 at 3:16 pm

  14. Oh, my. Look at this:

    1) The Republican frontrunner is a loudmouth social liberal eccentric from New York City who has been
    ahead in the polls for months despite being a very poor fit fort he party

    2) Hilary Clinton, who everyone thought was inevitable, is being seriously challenged by a far left
    candidate who would be historic if he wins due to his ethnicity.

    3) A New York City (former or current) mayor is considering entering the race even though this would give us
    3 socially liberal New Yorkers on the ballot.

    4) All of us are wondering if we are living in a dream/nightmare and saying “WTF?”

    Who said you can’t turn back the clock, folks? Welcome to November 2007, version II !

    Maryk

    January 23, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    • We need a Francisco Franco, or we need community leaders who are like Francisco Franco. His right wing phalange happened to killed a social liberal with Columbia University credentials and who was a NAM lover, during the Spanish Civil War. How cool was that? Even Hitler didn’t kill anyone with NY Social Values.

      JS

      January 24, 2016 at 1:05 pm

      • I say we need two socially conservative guidos. “Cruz-MaryK 2016!” Rafael Edward could get the conventional right-wing vote, and I might be able to mitigate some of the damage from Cruz’s “New York values” comment by proclaiming that you can indeed be a true conservative and an NYC resident at the same time. As to why I continue to live in one of the most liberal cities in America, I could say honestly that it is my hometown and that I’m loyal to it for Burkean reasons (the “little platoons” and all that.) This is what I told the editor of a famous right-wing magazine who I met about 15 years ago. I told him that I was born in Brooklyn and would probably live my whole life in Brooklyn. He said “very Chestertonian.” I replied “Of course. Did you imagine I was some status-chaser planning to move to Montreal?”………..(just joking about that last line, JS!)

        Maryk

        January 24, 2016 at 4:08 pm

      • Being a prole in NYC, means misery, and this would include the current predicament of Leon.

        I don’t know how anyone who lives in his hometown, and a loyal reader of this blog, can stomach the credulous, self destructive, childlike citizens of NYC long term, in a city that rapes your wallet, just for a piece of cupcake and a cup of tea, where the money also ends up in the coffers of de Blasio and his NAM minions, who are out to make your life miserable. Montreal is no utopia, but at least it doesn’t steal your hard earned money to fund undesirables, who will take your job and peace of mind. And Montreal is quite vibrant with a healthy sense of “Whiteness” in its civic culture. NYC’s SWPL scene is all about suicidal snobs with their sado-hedonist tendencies, who will hurt themselves and others along their path.

        JS

        January 25, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    • My father said many years ago, about Giuliani, that he could never vote for a New Yorker (it was a southern thing). I argued with him that Italians weren’t really the unpleasant New York types (funny, I know, given the opposite view often stated here, however, southerners seem to like IAs from what I’ve seen) and he offered that there was some truth to a general IA exception to his New Yorker rule. Anyway, he wasn’t forced into that particular corner. I laugh thinking about the predicament he would find himself in today were he forced to keep to his earlier vow. Four New Yorkers (Sanders, Hillary, Trump and Bloomberg) and not an IA among them! Of course, I realize Hillary isn’t a real New Yorker.

      Curle

      January 24, 2016 at 2:21 pm

      • Visit Staten Island and other prole areas, and many IAs appear quite intolerable to the average person from greater Meriprolestan. These rude, garrulous and parochial-minded guidos appeared not to have set foot anyplace else outside their environs, besides the Jersey Shore. Many of them have never even visited Italy. What person in the right mind would want to deal with them? If Trump’s NY accent is nauseating, then NYC’s guidos are certainly unpleasant in their speech patterns.

        JS

        January 25, 2016 at 1:39 pm

  15. In Paris intra muros , you only get movie in the original language with subtitles in French. For all french who weren’t grown up in Paris, it’s weird at the beginning and you fill you’re losing the atmosphere and images while focunsing on reading the subtitles. And then, you’re brain get used to it, and you’re able to both read (without noticing) the subtitles and seeing the movie. It’s like you woud be able to understand the foreing language with an inner voice in your brain that’d give direct access into the meaning (after some years of practice). At that moment, it is impossible to get back to movies where lips and voices don’t match (you notice that a lot when you’re not used to).

    So i wouldn’t say it’s only poshyness and status, it’s like strong cafee, spicy meals, appreciating vegetables etc. , it’s a matter of habit. For me , i wouldn’t say it’s intrinsically better (than suger and fat food), but i m sure i don’t pretend liking that staff. When i’m given some orange juice from supermarket based in concentrated fruits and lot’s of sugar, i really don’t like it.

    Being a white from Paris center, i’m probably not objective.

    Bruno from Paris

    January 24, 2016 at 7:58 am

    • You better get a few firearms.

      Mobutu

      January 24, 2016 at 2:53 pm

  16. Martinez should be Trump’s running mate: smart, good politician, woman, Latina (Mexican American, not Cuban like Rubio), cool with the establishment but not a total sellout like Nikki Haley. Trump isn’t going to win the Hispanic vote but Martinez could prevent him from losing by a bigger margin than Romney did.

    Also think 20 percent of the black vote is doable.

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 24, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    • Martinez should be Trump’s running mate

      No! That just looks like pandering due to a guilty conscience. That’s admitting he’s “racist and sexist” and has to prove he’s not.

      Bad move. He needs to find a young presentable White representative for the nationalist/populist agenda to counter the future of people like Paul Ryan and all the other scum.

      Rifleman

      January 25, 2016 at 10:02 pm

  17. …3 socially liberal New Yorkers on the ballot.

    But your “conservative” Republicans brought us to this point with immigration….Reagan, Bush, the chamber of commerse, the Wall Street journal, national review, Bush, Kaisich, Lindsey Graham, Rupert Murdoch etal.

    They all have worked to blow open the borders and import the Third World. Combine that with US born liberals and NAMs and asians and you have a heavily non conservative America so what do you expect.

    If you want a hard line conservative nerd as your candidate, great. But expect to go home with your “principles” as a YUGE LOSER!

    Rifleman

    January 24, 2016 at 5:16 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: