Surely this type of call to violence is not who we are. <\/p>\n If you are saying Trump is against humanity, then you are calling for him to be assassinated. <\/p>\n Steve Sailer writes<\/a>: Loose immigration policies tribalize domestic politics. When elites team up to import tribalist foreigners to lower their own citizens\u2019 wages and to vote against the natives\u2019 interests (and, now and then, murder them), why is it surprising when the poor dumb natives eventually get the message that they need a tribe of their own, too?<\/p>\n A methodological shortcoming of the various Nates\u2019 models of American politics is that they ignored evidence from abroad. It has been pretty obvious from recent elections in Denmark, Australia, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Germany, France, and so forth that immigration policy is a hot issue in the world today \u2014 even in Canada, where Justin Trudeau rode a spasm of sentimentality and smugness into office.<\/p>\n But these models ignore what voters are seeing on TV about the Camp of the Saints, terrorism, and sexual assault abroad. Instead, crimethink kicks in among pundits: protective stupidity about immigration policy as a subject that only bad people ever think about except in terms of ethnocentric schmaltz.<\/p>\n * Among our best and brightest (though obviously not perfect), it\u2019s very important that Trump\u2019s attractiveness not spring from his immigration policies. If we start thinking open-borders immigration ISN\u2019T inevitable, it won\u2019t be. They know that. Any given political \u2018inevitability\u2019 can disappear like a candle flame in Katrina. I think our Thinkies call that a \u2018black swan\u2019. The rest of us know it simply as limits of wishful thinking.<\/p>\n COMMENTS:<\/p>\n * It wasn\u2019t just that he (along with many other pundits) got it wrong, it was in how derisive he was (they were) toward Trump\u2019s prospects and how confident he was in his predictive analytics.<\/p>\n Simply put, his method is mostly garbage because it\u2019s tough to quantify political outcomes far in advance with so many moving parts. Models using data from elections or primaries in the past cannot account for the numerous shifts in public opinion that polls don\u2019t fully capture. Voters are people, and people are complicated. The rules of politics are free-flowing and ever changing. He says something to the effect that there aren\u2019t enough data points (since presidential elections are every four years), but doesn\u2019t realize this undercuts his argument that quantitative-based analytics best predicts political races.<\/p>\n * Among our best and brightest (though obviously not perfect), it\u2019s very important that Trump\u2019s attractiveness not spring from his immigration policies. If we start thinking open-borders immigration ISN\u2019T inevitable, it won\u2019t be. They know that. Any given political \u2018inevitability\u2019 can disappear like a candle flame in Katrina. I think our Thinkies call that a \u2018black swan\u2019. The rest of us know it simply as limits of wishful thinking.<\/p>\n * I\u2019m amazed at Nate\u2019s hubris in constantly criticizing \u201cpunditry,\u201d then engaging in it himself rather than taking a strict \u201cI\u2019m just a dispassionate stats nerd\u201d line that is more consistent with his brand anyway. Now he looks like a fool when the pure numbers for Trump should have made him more favorable to Trump than the average \u201cpundit.\u201d<\/p>\n * Nate Silver is all about stats or stat-factor. He seems blind to stars or star-factor.<\/p>\n Trump had a winning personality, at least compared to the others. If we were living in a non-visual age, Trump might have lost. Cruz looks like a cartoon character. Trump just looked like a drill sergeant compared to the others. He \u2018won\u2019 most debates not by what he said but how he said it.<\/p>\n True, positions did matter in this race, but it had a lot to do with personality. In contrast, Conservative Inc has usually been defensive in aggression, and aggressive in defense. It\u2019s as if Cons are afraid to go on the attack. I mean what if the attack is taken as \u2018racist\u2019, \u2018sexist\u2019, \u2018homophobic\u2019, etc.? Now, Trump knows how PC works. He knows it is powerful, and there are certain things he can\u2019t really touch: Jews, homos, and blacks.<\/p>\n But there are semi-PC areas that are sort-of-touchable, like immigration, Mexers, Muslims, and Chinese. Where there was some leeway for being politically incorrect, Trump pushed hard.<\/p>\n And Trump\u2019s pro-Russian stance was a kind of masterful indirect anti-PC. Russia is hated most by Jews and homos. So, Trump\u2019s call for peace was Russia was a roundabout kind of anti-PC.<\/p>\n * In fact, he kept coming up with completely ad hoc reasons to fudge the percentage chances of Trump winning primaries down with no justification beyond that he personally didn\u2019t think the polls were believable. What the hell kind of data science is that?<\/p>\n * Data science is the fancy new term. Back in the day, it was stats, market research, OR, econometrics or their cousins.<\/p>\n One truism from any era of data analysis is that if you torture the numbers enough, they\u2019re bound to confess what you want to hear. The further from STEM subjects, the more likely the standard deviants manipulate things.<\/p>\n * Remember Jeane Dixon? She was the noted psychic who supposedly predicted JFK\u2019s assassination. She rode that to a 20+ year career in the psychic business.<\/p>\n Nate Silver got some things right about the 2012 election, but he may be the Jean Dixon of our time.<\/p>\n * It\u2019s obvious that \u201cconservatism\u201d has evolved from an ideology into a theology. No longer a response to the excesses of 20th century statism, it is now a dogmatic religion that values blind faith over rationality.<\/p>\n The weirdest part is the fervent devotion on the altar of St. Ronnie by young conservatives who weren\u2019t even born when he was president. Hell, I loved the guy at the time, but the problems we face today are not the problems we faced in 1976.<\/p>\n * We are in uncharted waters with just 6% of the populace having any trust in news media. 94% of Americans distrust the talking heads and the scribes who have for generations told the public what to think. And trust for government is hardly any better. The potential for severe social upheavals is very real. Anti-Trump riots this summer? What happens when the current stock market bubble deflates or even bursts? We have the Occupy Wall Street cum Bernie radicals, Black Lies Matter anti-white violent racists, Colin Flaherty documented Knockout Game aficionados, and finally the law & order middle-class and lower whites finally awakening thanks to Trump.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I think a major reason that the pundits were so wrong about Trump is that half of them are Jewish and Jews tend to feel a visceral revolt against gentile nationalisms, racial consciousness, nativism, populism. Jews, by and large, feel … Continue reading ![\"Chuy-7rUgAA9UgV\"](\"http:\/\/www.lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/Chuy-7rUgAA9UgV-300x233.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nObama also won on the power of his personality. (Most other blacks couldn\u2019t have done it. He has an easy and smooth way with voters. So did Clinton.)<\/p>\n
\nBut people watch politics as a visual sport, and Trump was entertaining.
\nOthers looked dorky, gomer-pyle-ish, or ridiculous.<\/p>\n
\nRubio looks like a boy in a bubble bath.
\nWalker looks like a 5 yr old carrying lunch to school.
\nJeb looks like a turtle without a shell.
\nKasich looks like a third rate high school coach.
\nFiorina looks ungood as a ho.
\nChristie is a fatbody.<\/p>\n
\nThere was something about \u2018chief\u2019 about Trump.
\nHe looked aggressive on the attack, annoyed on the defense.<\/p>\n
\nThey are only aggressive in defense, like when NR kicked out Derbyshire. They sure spilled a lot of venom over that.<\/p>\n