Why did Donald Trump lose the 2016 election?

william.scherk

3,219 views

This is no longer a placeholder.  Some 'on the record' wild guesses are already out -- notably our Bob Kolker -- so  I too am going to publish a prediction/analysis, knowing full well I might be picking through bird bones on November 9.

 I think Donald Trump will lose the election on November 8th. I have some definite reasons why. I thought to post the reasons here, even if I am shown to be gawdawfully wrong later on. How 'off' will my analytic take be? Only time will tell. 

BQcDAAAAAwoDanBnAAAABC5vdXQKFmxwVjRTaUo3

Reason? Reasons?

Donald Trump lost because of the Republican Lady Vote, ultimately. He could have rallied a few more Latinos and African-Americans and other visible minorities to his base within his party's grasp, but that wouldn't have mattered as much as a seizing and a hold on Educated Lady votes.

That is the main reason he lost, looking back at me from the crystal ball. Ladies.

By state, he didn't capture the ladies of the Philadelphia suburbs, which cost him. He failed to capture the urban-suburban college-educated lady vote in Ohio and lost more crucial electoral votes.  He failed to capture the conservative educated ladies in Florida in enough numbers to beat Romney's showing in 2012  He failed with the ladies of Utah.  He failed with the ladies of North Carolina. He didn't get the crucial lady vote in states he needed.

There may be nuance, and other subsidiary reasons rooted in Mr Trump's behaviour and the challenges every Republican faces in terms of hostile and adversarial media.  There may be ground-game reasons, money reasons, biases galore, party mutiny and backstabbiness, ghost-voting, sinister plots and precinct rigginess beyond the pale, but when the totals were officially-certified in places Trump had to dominate to be the Winner, he fell short with the ladies ...

 

-- with my Red Hat on, my reasons all turn on treason, or behaviour just-shy-of treasonous, by a panoply of bought and paid for agents against democracy.  Not with a centre anywhere in particular, no grand plot, just a functional-structural bias on every dimension against Mr Trump. In the whole landscape of media small and large and fringe and newsworthy in themselves, it was ultimately Bannon and Trump against the world's sleaziest big-audience manipulators.  That built-in structural disadvantage was key. Allied structural impediments were important but secondary and amplified by his own party's elite class, whether in the party itself or in positions of prominence and power in Wall Street and Washington.  

That covers treasonous, bought, biased and elite party elders and candidates. Where were they when he needed them?

Those factors 'conspired' in a sense to depress turnout among previously likely voters.  The ticket-splitters and the stay-homers of the GOP great coalition of voters gave Hillary Clinton an extra advantage that was totally undeserved, a side-effect of elite 'treason' against the candidate.

Finally, with Red Hat still firmly on, Trump lost because of loathing, not rational fear, not reason.  The supine media and the fractured, corrupt party, and the 'got' functionaries of Clinton Inc put a false mark upon him and triggered an hysterical emotional reaction. They stoked phobia, hatred and division, and blamed Trump.They stoked loathing of the man and excused their complicity in feeding the hate.



107 Comments


Recommended Comments



1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

Trump won because he didn't read Objectivist Living.

OL has kind of been a clearing house for Trump boosting. If the candidate had been reading printouts from OL among the printouts on his desk, he would be very encouraged, on average, at the extent of devotion to his candidacy.  The rest of the world might be insensate with Trump hate, rage, anger and disgust -- or faking it -- but this place is like a Trump unicorn farm since The Departed took off to The Lake, my light critiques notwithstanding. It makes me think of the membranes separating one universe from another in M-Theory.  It is hard to cross from one bubble to another.

If Trump does pull off a surprise victory, squeaker or not, the same GOP Ladies will be the hatpin that burst the Democratic bubble.  As Scott Adams says, it is going to be women's fault if the outcome goes against the GOP.  Either way, I say we blame the ladies. Those fickle, fickle ladies.

"Why Trump Won" just writes itself, doesn't it, Brant?

Share this comment


Link to comment

If Donald loses, it probably will be in part because of the bad publicity he is getting from The Young Turks in their Loser Donald series. If anyone is interested click here.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
13 hours ago, jts said:

If Donald loses, it probably will be in part because of the bad publicity he is getting from The Young Turks in their Loser Donald series.

The Young Turks are a marginal force in the typhoon of hoopla rendered by the major broadcast outlets, part of what Robert Campbell called the 'legacy media.' The YT influence may well be there -- a loud flapping of political talking points day after day -- and the audience can be inferred from page hits and so on, but it just isn't a big enough mouth among the choristers, to my eyes.  For examples, compare total views on videos posted by Infowars and YT crews. I believe that the Alex Jones outfit has more political impact than Cenk Uygur's.

Are there more 'in part' reasons you can cite? 

A thousand pounds of feathers weighs as much as a thousand pounds of slime. In a typhoon category 5 everything gets aloft, if only for a brief time, and the 2016 category 5 hoopla is now at its strongest. Consider one small feathery bit of 'is this news?' in the media atmosphere today. The Trump campaign surfaced a gentleman with eidetic memory to debunk and refute an instance of Entitled Grabbiness on a plane.  

The odd part is that this debunker already has a reputation as a squealer and a pimp. He was briefly famous in 2014, touting his work as a purveyor of under-age male prostitutes to a conclave of Conservative bigwigs with special needs back in the bad old days. 

If Donald loses, as I expect he will, the Young Turks will perhaps gush over their potency in influencing the outcome. Good for them. Now try funding a non-internet network.  Get coast to coast radio slots in major markets. Get staffed.

-- I will admit to a bias, a distaste for Cenk. The first time he shouted at me from the screen was the last time I liked him. The pure crazy shouty wigginess of Alex Jones beats him in intensity and punch, but not by too much in my books. My bias was reinforced by that convention media-mall encounter mutual shout-out.  I mean, my rational mind was challenged to extract the meaning from the meeting, to get behind the aggression and volume, the flying saliva, the chest-thumping stupidity of the melee.

I am sure I would love to have a beer with Cenk and crew, if I could be assured they wouldn't go all shouty on me personally.

20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If Trump does pull off a surprise victory, squeaker or not, the same GOP Ladies will be the hatpin that burst the Democratic bubble.  As Scott Adams says, it is going to be women's fault if the outcome goes against the GOP.  Either way, I say we blame the ladies. Those fickle, fickle ladies.

"Why Trump Won" just writes itself, doesn't it, Brant?

"Amen," say the crows...

These have to be extra-exciting days for you, Michael. Your heart is fixed on a Trump victory. The finish line approaches. Your other interests Randian dwindle in importance.  You are a participant, on the electronic-age hustings, stumping, conducting a persuasive exercise. The clock is running out. I don't know that you will be so interested in participating in this thread in the aftermath of the election, offering your analysis, debating. 

You may be preparing a humiliating feast for all those analysts great and small who did confidently call the election for Clinton. Some of those people are enjoying the fall colours at The Lake. I wonder if they will be back to contribute to this thread, or perhaps to a "Why did Clinton lose?" topic. I hope everybody comes back to the OL benches after the election.  

Has everyone heard the haunting call of the loon? 

 

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment
17 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Has everyone heard the haunting call of the loon? 

William,

These certainly are exciting times. But I am chomping at the bit to get back to normal life.

I agree with you about Cenk. (I, also, don't like the yelling of Alex Jones unless it gets comical. :) ) I've seen enough of  Cenk's schtick to know he's templated, so a lot of his outrage seemed staged as you can call it on cue. I still prefer him to outright untalented leftie media shills like Stephanie Cutter (for some reason, I find her, in particular, creepy when she starts talking--I always felt the same about Debbie Wasserman Schultz).

There's another dude on TYT that I like a lot more than Cenk or any of his normal crew: Jordan Chariton. He and some others run a parallel thing called "TYT Politics."

btw - How would you rate the artistic sensibilities of a video-maker who starts a video entitled "(OFFICIAL VIDEO) LOON CALLS AT NIGHT / COMMON LOON VOICES" with an intro featuring a long-ass loud obnoxious sound of a fucking jet?

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment

Trump has said some things outside of the Access Hollywood tape that are disgusting and I think it's going to be very difficult for him to win.  I'm still casting my vote for him but it's in part for policy and in part consequence vote against Hillary.  I think it makes more sense to project out to Nov 9th and figure out how Trump lost rather than won---unless Assange can deliver a smoking gun which I don't think he has.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Korben,

I understand the dejection if you listen to the media. But there are other ways to measure what the public thinks and is going to do.

Here's a little trick you can try for yourself.

1. Go to YouTube and type the following in the search field (including quote marks): 

"Donald Trump"

2. Up to the left, there is a little rectangular button called "Filters." Click on it and a drop-down menu will open.

3. Under "Upload date," click on the word: "Today." The drop-down menu will close.

4. Click on "Filters" again to open it again, then under "Sort by," click on: "View count." The drop-down menu will close.

Now you will see the most popular videos on YouTube for the keyword "Donald Trump" for the last 24 hours. Notice the subjects the videos deal with. Nowadays, I am getting a whole bunch of videos of his speeches and people talking good about him and only a smattering of videos critical of him. In today's first page of results that I just saw, there is not one video mentioning the women accusing Trump. Not one.

Now do this process for "Hillary Clinton." I don't know what you get, but all I get is a string of videos about WikiLeaks, hacked emails, the subjects dealt with in hacked emails, and other Clinton scandals. I even got a Trump rally and videos by Alex Jones and Sean Hannity. :) Not one positive video about the rapist's wife. :) 

Now ask yourself, is there a conspiracy on YouTube to favor Donald Trump and trash Hillary Clinton? :) 

So see? There are other ways to take the pulse of the country in terms of voter intent. You don't need the corporate broadcast media and corporate polls. 

Rush says the corporate media and polls are designed to get you to feel discouraged so you will not have energy to encourage people to vote for the Republican candidate. And they always do this. That way you will stop campaigning. Hell, some get so discouraged they don't even vote since they believe the fix is in. But that is a huge mistake because the real polls will appear only about 5 days before election. The reason? The polling companies stake their reputations to those polls which have to reflect reality, not everything that came before where they can allege a crapload of excuses for getting it wrong. 

Stop watching TV and reading newspapers and start watching places where people interact, whether pro-Trump, pro-Clinton or neutral. That, to me, is a far better indication of what people are thinking, feeling, and ultimately will do on election day. And once you start, you begin to wonder what the hell the establishment doofuses are thinking... :) 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment

Vaknin's a publicity hound trying to be relevant after his schtick got a bit of spotlight, then the spotlight moved on.

But he does raise an interesting question in my mind.

I wonder if Hillary Clinton is a narcissist.

Hmmmmmmmm...

:evil: 

Michael

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
13 hours ago, jts said:

According to Sam Vaknin, Donald is a [...]

Yeahbut what about Jerry, according to Jerry?  The water's warm, come on in.  

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I wonder if Hillary Clinton is a [...]

I do too. **

14 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Why did Donald Trump win the  2016 election?

Good question. I would break it down a bit in my analysis.  The main reason he came from behind to win is that the 'hidden' Trump voters came out. So, when the 'corporate polls' showed him underwater with educated GOP and Independent Ladies throughout the long polling season since the primaries, they did a shitty job of sampling real people.

How do we know that?  Well, for several coupled reasons, which become solidly evident in those early November 8 exit polls; what those exit polls showed was those ladies in the suburbs of Philadelphia and Denver and Charlotte and Miami and Las Vegas and Cleveland, white ladies, they all came home to daddy when it mattered.

Now this was of course not a revelation.  Because of the corporate pollsters' built-in trap this election season, it was the very last week of polling that proper and objective sampling was done. Finally the missed, forgotten, de-weighted, lurking-in-the-data opinions became apparent. Wherever the corporate pollsters had tucked away respondents, they trotted them out.  Remember, none of the corporate pollsters 'wished for' a Trump victory, and so all of the polls 'suggesting' a Trump loss were in line with wishes, not reality.  It wasn't like 2012, where the pollsters' products were taken with a grain of salt by Romney's campaign.  Where internal polling for Trump showed they were doing fine, and not at all in line with the pollsters, they were right and Romney's internals were wrong

Finally, that which the conspiracy to deceive had tried to massage away, weight away, explain away -- in the final week the polls showed with precision just where the state of the race really was. The collective thumb was removed from the scales.  So. In New Hampshire, Trump up three. In Pennsylvania, Trump up 2. In Florida and Colorado, up three.  We saw the swing to Trump as predicted by at least one of us OLers. No way were the corporates going to be caught with pants down, with a split between polling and reality. They had no choice if they wanted to be relevant in the future.

Yes, what the anti-matter equivalent of pollsters was saying was correct, in almost every dimension.  Trump didn't fail with educated white women, surveys actually showed. He did not 'fail' to make inroads in Democratic-weighted Latinos. He had an enthusiastic and motivated group of backers that transcended the demographic straightjacket of the GOP. The indications of runaway success in non-poll metrics were borne out. Having Twitter and Facebook and Youtube dominance paid off.  Having lightly-structured social networks instead of expensive GOTV efforts paid off -- the day of the election, that enthusiasm and motivation got them to the polls in overwhelming numbers compared to the other guy. In some areas of 'Trump America' the line-ups were unexpected and almost criminal.  

Mr Trump has perhaps put the edge on my Red Hat explanation today.  With that hat firmly on, firmly enough to produce pain, I can say that the only thing that can stop the Trump juggernaut is Riggy Business. I can't specify which particulars in this thought experiment, but let's just say that despite the poll-watching, despite individual heroes in five thousand precincts, despite the obviousness of the intent to depress GOP turnout, there is still a possibility that this most magnificent future -- in which a Trump storms to a landslide -- may be Stolen.  Gingrich himself says this is a possibility. 

Take it away, Mr Trump! 

 


** - I will return to this [...]. There hasn't been a satisfactory discussion of it.

Share this comment


Link to comment
17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Rush says the corporate media and polls are designed to get you to feel discouraged so you will not have energy to encourage people to vote for the Republican candidate. And they always do this. That way you will stop campaigning. Hell, some get so discouraged they don't even vote since they believe the fix is in. But that is a huge mistake because the real polls will appear only about 5 days before election. The reason? The polling companies stake their reputations to those polls which have to reflect reality, not everything that came before where they can allege a crapload of excuses for getting it wrong. 

The Access Hollywood tape was funny for a while, but I'm sick of looking at any news source and seeing this crap:

Capture.JPG

I don't want to know the details of Bill Clinton's past or the details of Trump's past---whether one exists or doesn't.  Ayn Rand would be furious at the state of our politics, it's off the moral spectrum and devoid of values, anti-life.

Trump didn't do opposition research on himself and ultimately I think that will cost him.  Any Republican nominee needs the Lady vote and he lost it.

Share this comment


Link to comment
32 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Mr Trump has perhaps put the edge on my Red Hat explanation today.  With that hat firmly on, firmly enough to produce pain, I can say that the only thing that can stop the Trump juggernaut is Riggy Business. I can't specify which particulars in this thought experiment, but let's just say that despite the poll-watching, despite individual heroes in five thousand precincts, despite the obviousness of the intent to depress GOP turnout, there is still a possibility that this most magnificent future -- in which a Trump storms to a landslide -- may be Stolen.  Gingrich himself says this is a possibility.

I think the Brexit vote is neutralized now by not having the Lady vote.

Share this comment


Link to comment
43 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

but let's just say that despite the poll-watching, despite individual heroes in five thousand precincts, despite the obviousness of the intent to depress GOP turnout, there is still a possibility that this most magnificent future -- in which a Trump storms to a landslide -- may be Stolen.  Gingrich himself says this is a possibility.

I think the Brexit vote is neutralized now by not having the Lady vote.

That is perceptive. "The Brexit vote" is a neat encapsulation of some attitudes.  I can argue the USA harbours more Brexit vote than does Canada.

It is harder for a Canadian to get with the Trump economic nationalism. He (as President) does really have the executive power to send a note to Ottawa and Mexico City doing away with (many aspects of) NAFTA. Although NAFTA was born in the little-known-in-USA (boring) FTA negotiated by two conservatives (Mulroney/Reagan), against noisy left-liberal opposition, Canadians took to the FTA and took to NAFTA in turn.

The notion of a no-tariff continental economic alliance is popular across the parties up here. So, too with a 'federate' bias with regard to Brexit. Brexit itself complicates things in just a small way for Canada in reality. We are in the ultimate stages of ratification of the CETA (boring), an EU-Canada free-trade deal. It is being held up only by tiny Wallonia, of all places. There is significant cross-party support for "surrendering some sovereignty" by expanding access for our citizens and our goods.

I hope that brief boring aside clarifies why a Canadian will be Brexit anxious about what Trump would do with our cross-border trade. It is immense, and immensely important. Our continental energy and transport grids, our supply lines, so to speak, all of this is in some doubt or uncertainty for our folks, elite and ordinary.  Applied tariffs to Mexican goods ripple  across the entire USA-Canada relationship.  The conservative nature of Canada shows here. We want to preserve our access, selfishly and collectively.

The 'three amigos' in Ottawa were thus  bullish on continued integration of our economies and popular here for the policy.  So, in this sense, a Canadian will be biased in viewpoint by the notion of continuity and growth (under Obama+Clinton), and opposed to a dismantling of the treaties. 

With the EU in the bag, with tariff walls dropped and solutions to cross-ocean financial oversight and investment rules, we get a small step up over our partner-competitor the USA. If, as expected, post-Brexit Britain extends most-favoured nation status to Canada in bilateral trade, we continue to grow our international tentacles.

Another way of assessing taste for 'Brexit' in Canada is our painful history with separatism.  Ultimately we figure we survive better and prosper better 'together,' that the interprovincial freedom to live and travel and succeed under a confederation trumps state independence. That could explain why a strong majority are non-Trumpish on the topic of free trade.  We owe our livelihoods to the free flow of goods and people. We invite the world to our country and we wish the reciprocal rewards.

 

Back to the educated white lady vote. This has been traditionally a strong part of the GOP coalition in recent presidential elections. When the first indications were raised that Donald Trump had a wee 'problem' with this bloc, the challenge was set. Will Mr Trump yet rise to the challenge? Perhaps. Yes. No. No, in that he is presently wallowing in discomfort and outrage and casting himself as a victim. Not proud. Not calm. Not resolute. Not confident. Not 'above it all'. Not the best look for a leader in waiting.

-- at the sound of 1, 2, 3, you will snap out of your trance, completely forgetting what you learned about a 'from Canada' viewpoint... one ... two ... three.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment
24 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Yeahbut what about Jerry, according to Jerry?  The water's warm, come on in.  

Does anyone give a rat's ass what I think?

I think Sam Vaknin knows more about narcissism than I know. I'm not even very clear on what narcissism is. He is a professional narcissism expert.

I think Sam Vaknin knows more about Trump than I know. I didn't do any research on Trump. At the start of the video, Vaknin described his research on Trump and it sounds quite thorough.

So I leave it at that. I am not saying what Vaknin says is true (or false). I don't know enough to say something that I think is worth saying.

-----

There are some subjects where asking me what I think might be dangerous. For example a politician made the mistake of asking me what I think about taxes and I told him I think all taxes should be abolished. If you make the mistake of asking me what I think of politicians, I probably will tell you I think politicians are the lowest form of life walking on 2 feet. Another politician made the mistake of asking me what I think and I told him government has a power like the Midas golden touch except everything government touches turns into shit (instead of gold).  Maybe be glad when I don't tell you what I think.

Taxes:  All taxes should be abolished.

Politicians:  the lowest form of life walking on 2 feet; professional liars

Political office:  is a magnet that attracts people who want to control other people's lives

Government:  is not wisdom and not benevolence but the man with the gun

Elections:  are lying contests

Islam:  Satan the Devil would have difficulty inventing a worse religion than Islam.

Some things I'm thumbs down on:  crookeder than a dog's hind leg and lower than a snake's belly and they deserve a kick in the ass so hard that they gotta clear their throat to fart

Warning:  Don't nobody ask me what I think. You might get an answer.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
10 minutes ago, jts said:
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Yeahbut what about Jerry, according to Jerry?  The water's warm, come on in.  

Does anyone give a rat's ass what I think?

I think Sam Vaknin knows more about narcissism than I know

Using what you know from Vaknin, you may construct an argument that 'malignant narcissism' is what killed or contributed to the failure of Trump's campaign.  This may take some time, as you say, because you are not "even very clear on what narcissism is."

That pointed out, I should mention that I have thought that the evident or non-evident, obvious or obviously wrong notions around Trump's alleged narcissism are ... almost besides the point.  Besides the point because, to my eyes, whatever the obstacles to a narcissist taking political power, there are leg-ups over a non-narcissist. In other words, narcissism, or a small measure of it, can help a person navigate the procedure of getting elected to power.

More on that later. I should give some attention to what OLers have had to say about Narcissism and Mr Trump.  It isn't clear to me that we should speak of an attribute of personality as a pathology or a personality disorder.  

So, from the get-go, knowing nothing, What are the signs and behaviours of narcissism (can it be reliably diagnosed?)?  How would narcissistic behaviour shape a candidate''s campaign? How did it do so in this instance, this thought experiment? -- why would it make any difference?

Share this comment


Link to comment
56 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

-- at the sound of 1, 2, 3, you will snap out of your trance, completely forgetting what you learned about a 'from Canada' viewpoint... one ... two ... three.

:lol:

54 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Another way of assessing taste for 'Brexit' in Canada is our painful history with separatism.  Ultimately we figure we survive better and prosper better 'together,' that the interprovincial freedom to live and travel and succeed under a confederation trumps state independence. That could explain why a strong majority are non-Trumpish on the topic of free trade.  We owe our livelihoods to the free flow of goods and people. We invite the world to our country and we wish the reciprocal rewards.

I ran across this article a few weeks ago, "This Is the Freest Country in the World [Canada]"
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/03/canada-is-the-freest-nation-in-the-world-legatum-study-says

It's a short article:

America may call itself the "Land of the Free," but it's hardly the freest nation in the world, according to a new report from the Legatum Institute, a London-based think tank.

The group's annual prosperity index, which ranks the prosperity of 142 countries, has ranked Canada the best country in the world for "personal freedom."
According to the study, Canada is the most tolerant of people from other countries, with 92 percent of Canadians thinking the country is a good place for immigrants. In addition, about 94 percent of Canadians believe that they have the freedom to choose the course of their own lives, the study says.
Did we mention they might legalize pot soon?
America, on the other hand, ranks 15th for freedom, just behind Costa Rica and the Netherlands.
The best countries for personal freedom are:
1. Canada
2. New Zealand
3. Norway
4. Luxembourg

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Any Republican nominee needs the Lady vote and he lost it.

Korben,

That is based on three assumptions (probably more) that deserve to be checked because, in my view, they do not reflect reality.

1. Women are shallow voters who have no concern about issues and are only concerned about public image--that is, about what others say about how men treat them or about whether men use foul language in a manner they don't like. In other words, the assumption is that women don't have brains for large topics like the country, but instead only value personal relationships. As a corollary to that assumption, the Lady vote is homogeneous and women vote in a collective block.

2. Corporate polls are accurate predictors.

3. Hillary Clinton has the Lady vote, or will have it by election day.

I don't believe any of these assumptions. In my view of women, they are a lot smarter and more diverse than that.

In fact, I know a boatload of women right here in Evanston, IL, which is about as left as you can get, who are diehard Trump supporters.

Also, we don't know what WikiLeaks has cooked up in this department, but I have a feeling it ain't good for Hillary Clinton.

Just food for thought.

:)

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, jts said:

Does anyone give a rat's ass what I think?

I think Sam Vaknin knows more about narcissism than I know. I'm not even very clear on what narcissism is. He is a professional narcissism expert.

I think Sam Vaknin knows more about Trump than I know. I didn't do any research on Trump. At the start of the video, Vaknin described his research on Trump and it sounds quite thorough.

So I leave it at that. I am not saying what Vaknin says is true (or false). I don't know enough to say something that I think is worth saying.

-----

There are some subjects where asking me what I think might be dangerous. For example a politician made the mistake of asking me what I think about taxes and I told him I think all taxes should be abolished. If you make the mistake of asking me what I think of politicians, I probably will tell you I think politicians are the lowest form of life walking on 2 feet. Another politician made the mistake of asking me what I think and I told him government has a power like the Midas golden touch except everything government touches turns into shit (instead of gold).  Maybe be glad when I don't tell you what I think.

Taxes:  All taxes should be abolished.

Politicians:  the lowest form of life walking on 2 feet; professional liars

Political office:  is a magnet that attracts people who want to control other people's lives

Government:  is not wisdom and not benevolence but the man with the gun

Elections:  are lying contests

Islam:  Satan the Devil would have difficulty inventing a worse religion than Islam.

Some things I'm thumbs down on:  crookeder than a dog's hind leg and lower than a snake's belly and they deserve a kick in the ass so hard that they gotta clear their throat to fart

Warning:  Don't nobody ask me what I think. You might get an answer.

Someone not asking you hasn't stopped you--here.

--Brant

which is A-Okay by me

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

That is based on three assumptions (probably more) that deserve to be checked because, in my view, they do not reflect reality.

1. Women are shallow voters who have no concern about issues and are only concerned about public image--that is, about what others say about how men treat them or about whether men use foul language in a manner they don't like. In other words, the assumption is that women don't have brains for large topics like the country, but instead only value personal relationships. As a corollary to that assumption, the Lady vote is homogeneous and women vote in a collective block.

2. Corporate polls are accurate predictors.

I didn't look at the polls to make my conclusions earlier.  However, they are concomitant with what I said, and among several women demographics:

Foxnews Oct 14:

In the four-way race, Clinton is favored among non-whites (+62 points), suburban women (+24), women (+19), and voters under 30 (+16).  Third party candidates hurt her among younger voters, as about one in four of them go for Johnson or Stein.  

Trump’s the pick for men (+5 points), whites (+14), and whites without a college degree (+25).  

Since last week, the largest declines in support for him are among women ages 45 and over (down 12 points), voters ages 65+ (down 11), suburban women (down 10), white women with a college degree (down 7), GOP women (down 6), and white college graduates (down 6).

CBSNews Oct 16:

A big swing in the women’s vote has propelled Hillary Clinton into a six-point lead across the battleground states, as seven in ten women feel Donald Trump does not respect them. 

horserace.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Last month the women’s vote in these key states was five points more for Clinton; today it is 15 points in Clinton’s favor – accounting for most of the swing, overall - and it even outweighs partisanship. Trump was at 84 percent among Republican women then, and has dropped to 77 percent today.

women-poll.jpg

 

And in a sign of what’s become a very personal presidential race, at least half of voters say they like Donald Trump’s policies on the economy and defense, and even like them a bit more than Clinton’s, but Trump is trailing in large part because voters say they dislike him personally.

Seventy percent of voters do not think Trump respects women. Seventy-three percent of women say this, 66 percent of men do. Although most (52 percent) Republicans think people are making too much out of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tapes, 60 percent of independents find them offensive and 70 percent of women do. Nine in ten women who find the tapes offensive, and who were not already for Trump, say they wouldn’t consider Trump now.
 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

3. Hillary Clinton has the Lady vote, or will have it by election day.

I don't believe any of these assumptions. In my view of women, they are a lot smarter and more diverse than that.

In fact, I know a boatload of women right here in Evanston, IL, which is about as left as you can get, who are diehard Trump supporters.

Also, we don't know what WikiLeaks has cooked up in this department, but I have a feeling it ain't good for Hillary Clinton.

Just food for thought.

Unless WikiLeaks has a smoking gun it won't matter, there's no shock.  The Access Hollywood tape is the October surprise and it cost Trump the election.  Trump needs more women voters aside from his diehards: other Republicans, independents, undecideds, millennials, cross-over Democrats, but I don't think he will get them.  And what Trump might have had with a Brexit style unaccounted voter (both men and women) is neutralized by the women that won't vote for him now. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

:lol:

I ran across this article a few weeks ago, "This Is the Freest Country in the World [Canada]"
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/03/canada-is-the-freest-nation-in-the-world-legatum-study-says

It's a short article:

America may call itself the "Land of the Free," but it's hardly the freest nation in the world, according to a new report from the Legatum Institute, a London-based think tank.

The group's annual prosperity index, which ranks the prosperity of 142 countries, has ranked Canada the best country in the world for "personal freedom."
According to the study, Canada is the most tolerant of people from other countries, with 92 percent of Canadians thinking the country is a good place for immigrants. In addition, about 94 percent of Canadians believe that they have the freedom to choose the course of their own lives, the study says.
Did we mention they might legalize pot soon?
America, on the other hand, ranks 15th for freedom, just behind Costa Rica and the Netherlands.
The best countries for personal freedom are:
1. Canada
2. New Zealand
3. Norway
4. Luxembourg

In Canada, like probably all other countries in the world, you don't fully own your home and your land. You pay rent property tax.

And you pay income tax. If I went around pointing a gun at people and telling them to give me a portion of their income, that would be theft. Government does the same thing and calls it a tax. Same thing under a different word.

What did Ayn Rand say is the only proper function of government? Something about protecting rights, including property rights.

I have a different theory of government, a theory that actually explains why governments behave as they do, and it explains why all -modern- governments gravitate toward a mixed system, contrary to Ayn Rand's statement that a mixed system is unstable.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

I think the Brexit vote is neutralized now by not having the Lady vote.

The ladies are more man than you're giving them credit for.

--Brant

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
This blog entry is now closed to further comments.