Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* HRC had no advantage on any issue. No wonder she ran on personal attacks, and no wonder Bill threw his cell phone in frustration. Hillary did talk in handwavey gestures about Wall Street or some such but there was no substance.

* The sheer chutzpah of dopey Hillary going on about Trump’s temperament! And his fitness for the Presidency! Maybe this worked with some female voters but my bet is many/most of those polled as objecting to Trump’s character really did not. They were amused by Trump’s alpha brashness or ranked other “issues” ahead of it and too important to ignore. Like having a decent job and their family not getting raped by O-Care.

The bi-coastal elites and their opinion factories failed. The propaganda barrage from Hollywood celebs was relentless, I thought would turn too many lo-info voters away from The Donald.

* There is a segment on BBC after the election with Ann Coulter and Jerry Springer.

Springer can’t believe that so many Americans voted for Trump. How could they vote for someone so vulgar and ‘trashy’? Don’t these ordinary Americans have no taste?

But didn’t the likes of Springer degrade the American people over three decades with trash TV?

The Glob who created trashy TV shows made the public accept someone like Trump… especially after it acted like Bill Clinton’s indiscretions were a-okay as long as the stock market was up.

I recall TV shows like the Swan and Ugly Duckling and other garbage that the Lib Media foisted on the public.

Yet they wonder how the American Public got so coarse.

Such lack of self-reflection. Are these sociopaths?

—————–

Problem used to be Imperial Over-reach.

Now, the problem is Imperial Intake. West takes in too many people.

* Aside from already being rich and famous, his only real advantage may have been that otherwise he entered the race with few people ever thinking he could actually win. That meant that he ran his campaign from his heart, not his head. The result was that he showed us – or reminded us – that a candidate who runs from his heart can win. So many other presidential candidates are automatons who don’t say or do anything that isn’t focus-grouped and poll-tested. The most successful politicians all too often are sociopaths. Nothing they ever say can be believed. They run their campaigns and even live their lives based on what their pollsters tell them.

Mitt Romney was one of them. It’s assumed that Mitt Romney could have beaten Hillary Clinton this year, but could he have? Maybe, probably, but his margin of victory in the electoral college would probably have been smaller than Trump’s. Mitt Romney did everything you would have expected a robotic candidate to do. He ran to the right in the primaries, being by far the most pro-enforcement Republican candidate in the pack, then ran left (on cultural issues) in the general, completely dropping immigration from his campaign. Lots of people doubted his sincerity on immigration enforcement, and everything he’s said and done since losing has suggested he wasn’t.

On the other hand, what happens when you get a candidate with more of Romney’s personal strengths but with Trump’s willingness – courage – to run from the heart? You get all the states Trump won plus maybe quite a few more – New Hampshire (4), Minnesota (10), Virginia (13), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), and maybe even Oregon (7) and Maine (+3). That’s 358 electoral votes.

A Mitt Romney who runs more from his heart? Not only would that Mitt have thumped Hillary this year – he would’ve trounced Obama back in 2012.

Trump’s victory has done a lot to kill the Chamber of Commerce/Neocon arguments that appealing to the white Paleocon vote is a losing battle. It’s hard to imagine another Republican candidate ever running again who doesn’t understand that power. Republicans have emerged from the 2016 elections liberated to talk about the issues their voters have been demanding they address for years. Democrats, meanwhile, seem to be stuck in the same smug, anti-male, anti-white, anti-American rhetoric that sank Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Yes, the demographics are moving against the Republicans, but there stills appears to be time left to do something about it.

* Pence was all-in for Rubio’s Gang of 8 Amnesty Bill of 2013. He thought he would be welcome at a crappy Broadway hip-hop musical which has non-White actors playing the leading roles.

I’ll never forget walking through the East Harlem (Manhattan) neighborhood where my Italian parents were born. Two Puerto Rican women spat on me. An old Puerto Rican man called me a “Po-Po Republican that fucks goats.” The absolute hatred against The Unbearable Whiteness of Being was astonishing to witness. My parents had moved out of this neighborhood during the early fifties when a crime-wave, courtesy of Puerto Rican immigration, hit Manhattan (East Harlem was ground zero). They moved to Queens to get as close to Donald Trump’s parents as they possibly could!

During the next four years, the armed guard around Trump and Pence will, of necessity, be increased at least four-fold by the Secret Service.

* Remember that a Hamilton cast member is likely to be a twofer: minority and gay. You can’t imagine the entitlement he feels.

* The obverse of the point in the article that Trump won on the issues is that many voters who didn’t vote for him did so because of perceived weaknesses in his character or experience.

But he will certainly gain that experience on the job as President. And, as I certainly expect, he will allay fears about his riskiness as a President simply by being President for months and years without terrible disasters ensuing.

Once most Americans reach a comfort level with Trump as President, I’d expect his approval levels to rise. This is especially so given his implementation of policies with which they agree.

* I think you’re giving Romney too much credit. A few tweaks to his message and persona would not have made him a shoe-in then or now. There is an undefinable spark that makes one candidate appealing while another has Loser written all over him. Trump is the former while Romney is the latter As the saying goes nice guys finish last. When your opponents are hardcore fanatics bent on completing the transformation of America into a third world hellhole you need someone who’s willing to get their hands dirty.

* It was hard for Hillary to convincingly criticize Wall Street while standing on a pile of their money.

* Btw, the leftist glory-hound who lectured Pence called (in reply to Trump’s demand for an apology, which he didn’t get – this is why it was a waste of time to treat Hussein with respect) it a “conversation.”

Is there some way to explain to these idiots what a conversation is?

Comments:

* 3am on the east coast? In hindsight, sure, it was wrapped up quickly but on the night of, with networks refusing to call states and Hillary refusing to concede, it dragged on forever. Despite Trumps bigly leads when Podesta came out on stage I went to bed expecting to wake up to a Hillary Win based on magically “finding” more previously uncounted ballots. It definitely didn’t feel like it was over fast.

* …it was always a given that the race hinged on what happened in the East and Midwest. The only Western state that was ever really in any doubt was Arizona, and it turned out he didn’t need it. People claimed he stood a chance at losing Utah, but I don’t think that was ever really going to happen. Trump’s Utah totals were more than twice as as high as Chamber of Commerce/Neocon buttboy Evan McMullin, and his unpopularity with Mormons is probably the only reason Arizona was ever so close.

That map is just another reminder that Republicans have been warned about immigration. Nevada and Colorado may very well be lost for good.

Another great outcome of this election was the vote in four states to increase the minimum wage. One of the states which did so was Arizona. Between that and Trump, the business lobby has been put on notice that their open borders policies won’t be tolerated any longer. It will be interesting to see if higher minimum wages have any effect on reducing immigration. I suspect they will.

* The polls weren’t ‘wrong’, they were deliberately skewed for Clinton; in the tank for their candidate as much as CNN, MSNBC, et al. And they were feeding the real, correct numbers to the Clinton campaign.

Five days before the vote, Clinton’s campaign cancelled the expensive and Coast Guard licensed fireworks display, long-planned for her victory celebration.

They knew.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s called crony capitalism, the oligarchy, ruling uniparty, fascism, or class solidarity. The information available to the public was coordinated, centrally-dictated disinformation; pure propaganda to influence voter behavior.

* My guess was that there was a plan to steal the election for Clinton that was (partially) aborted at the last minute for unknown reasons. The only explanation I can think of is that the security issues turned out to be worse than the “establishment” had realized and people came to the conclusion that the Clintons really couldn’t be let back into the White House, nor was she going to step down voluntarily in favor of Kaine. So they went to Plan C of letting Trump become President, with the further fallback option of being able to impeach and remove him later if needed.

I thought it was a long night myself, Trump needed to carry Pennsylvania in just about all scenarios and that wasn’t called until 3 AM, and Michigan still hasn’t been formally called for some reason.

* Much of the preference for hiring immigrants is due to the opinion that they are more controllable/ less uppity than native born American workers (both Black and White), plus if they are illegal they can be threatened with deportation.

Many “Hispanic” immigrants are actually American Indians and have a sort of stoic culture that employers like.

* There were Democrats and Never Trump Republicans on CNN & MSNBC who were predicting that Crooked Hildabeast was going to defeat Donald J. Trump in a Ronald Reagan Walter Mondale style Electoral landslide.

It shows how extremely out of touch Democrats and Never Trump Republicans in Washington DC, Los Angeles and New York City are for believing Crooked Hildabeast was going to sweep Flyover Country and turn it all into a sea of blue.

It shows how extremely out of touch the Democrats and Never Trump Republicans are for believing Crooked Hildabeast in 2016 is anywhere as loved by the American people as Ronald Reagan was in 1984.

These Democrats and Never Trump Republicans live in their own Left Wing bubbles where they do not personally know anybody in their circle of friends and family who doesn’t believe Crooked Hildabeast is the greatest thing to happen to Mankind since the invention of the airplane.

* When Podesta came out (about 1 or 2am Central time) and gave his spiel “every vote counts, still counting, etc.” I thought for sure a few car trunkloads of “forgotten” ballots would be found in Philly and Detroit. Then just a little while later Trump gives his victory speech and says Hillary called him to concede. I’m still genuinely curious what happened that night. Was Hill too drunk/enraged to give a proper concession speech, like rumors suggest? Or did she want to fight on but the fixers told her it was too late to “find” more ballots?

* I had the feeling that, with Comey’s first announcement, there was a crisis of confidence in Clinton within the ruling class. It seemed maybe Comey’s announcement expressed more than caused this crisis, which was precipitated primarily by WikiLeaks. You can’t have a politician who’s revealed to say she has public positions and separate (real) private positions for rich donors.

After the Comey letter, Clinton retreated to mudslinging and women’s identity politics (apparently struggling to hold the white, middle-class women’s vote). On columnist (whose name I don’t recall, a Harvard political scientist I think) opined presciently that the one way Clinton could lose is if she turns the election into a woman against man contest. And that’s what she ultimately did.

* In Colorado, more people voted Republican for congress than voted Democrat.

Congress:
47.8% GOP
46.7% Dem
5.3% Libertarian

President:
48.1% Clinton
43.4% Trump
5.2% Johnson
1.4% Stein
1.0% Egg McMuffin

So roughly 3% points of Clinton’s vote was #NeverTrump GOP votes who turned around and voted for Paul Ryan and the GOP majority in the House.

Something similar occurred in Virginia.
Congress:
50.5% GOP
48.3% Dem
1.0% Libertarian
A Libertarian only ran in 3 of Virginia’s 11 districts for Congress, but they got the same level of votes Johnson got in those districts.

President:
49.8% Clinton
44.4% Trump
3.0% Johnson
0.7% Stein
1.4% Egg McMuffin

So again, the McMuffin vote, about 4% of the GOP voters pulling Clinton and GOP for congress, and defectors to Johnson cost Trump the state.

Trump lost Nevada by 2.35% in the end. Given that he lost the popular vote nationally by 1.25%, this means Nevada still leans slightly Democratic (0.5% points). If Trump had won a simple majority, he would have likely won Nevada. Trump was actually much closer to winning Nevada than Romney was – Romney lost by 6.7%.

In the end, #NeverTrump cost Trump victory in Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, and Nevada, and Trump still won the election comfortably. It would have been an even more convincing 350-188 win in the Electoral College and a 50-46 or 51-46 win in the popular vote without their efforts to sabotage his election. When you hear people talking about him losing the popular vote or the election being “close”, keep that in mind.

* Some observations partly based on volunteer time since Aug-
-WI pro-Trump sympathies prone to go underground due to greater concern about social acceptability. In particular, WI-1, Ryan’s district is extraordinarily timorous, apathetic, conformist. Was milquetoast Les Aspin’s district, and it will be far harder to repeat a Cantor-style primary ouster. Just ask Paul Nehlen
-IL, NY, CA, OR, CO, NM poll data is skewed by pockets of heavy voter fraud going under the radar, so DEM support is undercounted.
-NV poll data is worthless, and there is likely fraud in parts of Vegas. Nobody answers their phones there. Is southern NV not the most rootless place in the history of the world?
-Trump’s MI support was quite strong in the U.P., and people there were surprisingly candid about it -some would thank you effusively for supporting him. Why are MI voters less intimidated by the Hive narrative vs their neighbors? Probably cause they’ve endured austerity for so long, they don’t give a damn about media approval anymore.
-OH Trump support is probably at such a critical mass that folks feel there is no longer as much social censure risk. One surprise is how big the unassimilated Somali community is in Columbus. That may be startling some folks in central OH to embrace immigration control. OH is also becoming more like southern states in terms of white vote migration to the GOP with heightened concern about nonwhite criminality, & welfare abuse.

* Steve, you need to find the relative approval rating of the HIVE media narrative (or generic % approval or “trust in the media as as institution”) in various states to see where the Trump vote is most likely to be either driven underground, or to be cowed into not voting, or going NeverTrump. Suspect the Hive & SJW peer pressure has more power in CO than in MI for example. Things like newspaper subscription rates, % of full slate cable television payees, etc will be clues.

* I’d heard about the fireworks thing. Despite that, Hillary seemed quite shaken up for someone who had prior warning. But she was not the most grounded of people.

The following goes against my general philosophy of interrupting an opponent when they are making a mistake, but the election is over now and so my desire to gloat overrides whatever happens in 2020 (and by that time we will see an even bigger league Trump landslide, so not so worried there).

Of the swing states, it’s interesting that only Nevada was under-predicted for Clinton. I suspect this was a function of Trump’s more efficient use of resources and better tactics (but wouldn’t this show up in the polls?). In any case, Trump did better than predicted there.

I donated to Trump early (back when he offered to match me), and I found it interesting that Trump kept asking me (and everyone else who donated) what we thought the biggest issues were, and asked advice on how to handle the debates. I doubt Clinton did stuff like that.

Someone mentioned Nixon’s timing. A candidate has to peak at the right moment. That right moment is on election day, and days leading up to it. Naturally, Trump was keeping powder dry for use in the home straight – his campaign spending ramps up only right at the end compared to Clinton.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-numbers-us-presidential-election-2016-a7392136.html

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/heres-where-clinton-trump-spent-on-their-ground-games.html

Looking at the “Where they spent” graph, it furthers my point on campaign spending efficiency. Clinton evidently spent big in IL. Why? It was just wasted money. But the Florida amount looks wrong, so I did some more digging.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-tv-ads/

Again, it is telling how Trump was nearly matching Clinton in the swing states close to election time. Since he didn’t have as much money spent, he used it in areas he could get more bang per buck.

As an “internet president”, Trump also spent nearly his Media budget on Digital Consulting/Online Advertising. Clinton bought mostly media.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Trump also spent the least, normalized, for a winning Republican president since 1960. George HW Bush looked to be close, but he was following Reagan. GHWB’s similar spend the following cycle was not enough. Under budget, and exceeding expectations.

http://metrocosm.com/2016-election-spending/

It goes to the point I made months ago here that Trump would beat Clinton because he’s more competitive, and does a better job of matching his strengths with the weaknesses of others.

Getting back to the original point that the pollsters under-predicted the swing states, I guess if they are manipulating the figures then they would have to under-predict the swing states. Maybe they thought they could make it seem less corrupt by over-predicting states such as Cali.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Trump voters there have mostly never stepped foot on any sort of public transit their whole life. They do not want high speed rails, they want the interstates to be upgraded and widened.

One big rig passing another on a 2 lane section of I 94 really is a drag, suddenly everyone has to drop to 60mph or worse.

* Calling BS. Some Trump, GOP voters already ride Amtrak & public transit, and they would do so more if 3 things changed: 1) Sense of pride & professionalism in how the service is run. 2) Sense of urgency & accountability in getting the damn thing to run on time, w/ reasonable goals for improvement. 3) An end to the whining & excuses from Congress, Neocon bozos about how rail is not an inherently American thing. Before 1950 it was the norm, and it was a great way to keep in touch with fellow citizens, and way more civilized than your average airline experience nowadays.

* Riding the rail cross country is a pretty cool way to see the sights. Though the affirmative action hires, conductors and servers, leave much to be desired.

* What really makes sense (but is very expensive) is to put in high speed rail so that a city that is 100 miles from Chicago can be a commuter suburb that can be reached in 45 minutes. Milwaukee and South Bend would both fit in this radius. This is what the Chinese are doing.

* The problem is there as well as here, who would actually use it? Unless heavily subsidized, ticket prices would not be able to compete with air travel. As an exercise, pick two cities (say LA – SF) and book both a flight and an Amtrak journey, and guess what? Flying will likely be the cheaper option or close to the same price.
And like with FL, tourists wouldn’t use it either, would someone going to Disney World(land) take a train to another city? Why? Not to mention the fact that once they’ve arrived (flight or rail) they’re going to need to rent a car. Even though it’s the slower option, someone that really wants to go Orlando to Tampa (LA to SF) will simply brave I-4(5) and have a car when they get there.

* I like that old-school New Deal big government, I admit. Kept blue collar people working and created jobs for people with 90 IQs so they didn’t become meth heads (drunks in that era). Won WW2 (I realize many here regard this as a bad thing) and helped us survive the Great Depression. Brought the country together instead of subdividing us over identity politics. (I admit I am ‘alt-lite’ and make no apology for it.) And left an architectural legacy we can still see. It’s when liberalism turned into lifestyle liberalism instead of delivering real benefits to working people that it went wrong, IMHO. Bannon’s kind of in that tradition, which I like.

Steve Sailer writes: “Has anybody noticed that Hamilton’s program was rather Trumpish: protectionism, immigration restriction, infrastructure, and the Electoral College?

By the way, as the strong man of the first cabinet, Hamilton was a big league supporter of the 1790 immigration act that restricted immigration to whites only.”

Alexander Hamilton wrote in January 1802:

“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

“The opinion advanced in [Jefferson’s] The Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

My friend writes: As you know my prediction of the election’s outcome the weekend before the election came to pass. I also predicted protests and riots and possible insurrection. We don’t yet have insurrection and hopefully we won’t.

Here are just some not so random observations about the election.

The drive to replace the electoral college and replace it with a popular vote. This would require a constitutional amendment and it is unthinkable that the smaller states would give away their relative power. If the electoral college were eliminated, all election dollars would be spent in California, New York, Florida and Texas, (which contain 1/3 of all United States citizens), and then Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. It would certainly make it a lot more exciting in California since it has twice the population of New York and Florida and around 12,000,000 persons than Texas.

The reason the election wasn’t challenged. A margin of 100,000 votes separated Trump from Clinton and Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Ordinarily, this might be close enough to encourage the loser to challenge the results, especially in light of Clinton’s lead in the popular vote total.

After looking at post-mortems, including what each candidate thought would be the outcome of the election, it is appears that Hillary’s own internal polls showed her losing those states and perhaps more, and Trump’s internal polls showed them gaining in and winning those states and perhaps more. These were at odds with the public polls. I do not know how much voter fraud there was, but the Clinton campaign may have been unwilling to challenge because a challenge might show widespread voter fraud perpetrated by the Democrats. Considering the enmity between the Trump and Clinton camps, as well as Clinton’s and Obama’s running her campaign as if a loss to Trump would be the apocalypse, it suggests that if they could engage in voter fraud they would. If I am correct then Trump actually won with a larger share than publicly accepted and this may explain the reasons that both Clinton and Obama have been so conciliatory toward Trump. Fringe sites such as Infor wars run by Alex Jones, claim as many as 3,000,000 non-citizens voted in the election and that they voted overwhelmingly for Clinton.

The protests. Many on the conservative side believe these are not spontaneous but organized by Soros affiliated organizations or radical leftist (such as ANSWER) organizations. To support of this contention they show that buses brought in protesters to Austin Texas and Chicago Illinois and that Craigs list in Philadelphia posted a listing offering to pay protesters. Perhaps this so, but from viewing the reaction to the election from family members and facebook friends, I think the protests are genuinely spontaneous. I don’t think the protesters are thinking about the things that they should: (1) are they protesting Trump’s policies or are they protesting because they believe he is some sort of fascist or Nazi. If they believe the latter, then they need to educate themselves about what Trump has actually said. Since Schumer, Warren and Sanders all have indicated they are willing to work with Trump on issues near and dear to them, this would tend to show that elected leaders who took one position during the campaign, now want to cut deals with him, deals they wouldn’t cut if they actually believed he was another Hitler or an outright white nationalist. (2) what do they seek to accomplish through the protests? Are they to encourage moving toward a popular vote and end to the electoral college? Is it to pressure the electoral college electors? Is it to get Trump to change policies? Is it to warn Trump that if he tries to implement policies he campaigned on there will be even greater protests? Is it to pressure Democrats to become obstructionists in dealing with Trump, the way they believe Republicans treated Obama? Is it to overturn the election? Is it to try to delegitimize Trump’s election? I think all of things play a part in the protests, but I don’t think the protestors realize that if they are accomplishing anything it is to make Trump’s victory more popular. The polls show that Trump’s negatives have been almost entirely eradicated since the election. Some of this is due to the natural respect persons have for the president and the willingness to give the president-elect a chance, others because Trump himself has acted more presidential and less petty and thin skinned than during the campaign, but I think part is a reaction to the protestors.

The level of vitriol directed at Trump, Bannon and soon towards Sessions. Attempts to smear Trump as a racist and anti-semite haven’t worked. The attempt to label Bannon in the same way hasn’t worked. What is the reason the protestors and Democrats are doing this? Although they are quick to label Trump a conservative in many ways, particularly with regard to foreign military interventions, the transpacific partnership and international trade deals, on reinstating Glass-Stiegel, and the infrastructure he is way outside the Republican mainstream and outflanks the Democrats on the left.

The Democrats always thought they had the economic populist vote. The Democratic strategists see that should Trump succeed, he may realign the Republican party and secure its power for the next couple of decades. This does contain a major caveat; Trump must dodge any economic meltdown in the next four years which would probably catapult Elizabeth Warren into the White House in 2020. But for the time being they look at Bannon and his economic plans, his attacks on crony capitalism, his contempt for the financialization of the economy and the commodification of human beings to be simply consumers is clear, no doubt helped along by his Catholicism and his fear that American has lost its Judeo-Christian moral underpinning, as a real threat. Bannon also clearly sees that the Democrats have boxed themselves in with their embrace of environmental and social justice issues. The Democrats cannot reach out to the Trump voters without toning both of those down. In the case of environmentalists, if the Democrats move to attract Trump voters, they may go to the Green party or split off from the Democrats to form a new rump party. In the case of those concerned about social justice, the Democrats are beholden to the African American vote. They simply cannot win in states like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and the industrial Midwest without maintaining large and monolithic black turnout. However, if the Democrats embrace white working class voters and jettison their strong association with affirmative action, blacks may well stay home. If Trump can deliver real economic growth in urban areas and reduce crimes in those area, he may be able to break the Democratic stranglehold on the black vote.

Make no mistake, the left and particularly anyone trained in traditional Marxism, believe that economic factors from the inequality of wealth to the distinction between the ordinary citizen and the owners of the financial institutions and industrial factories would be the basis for revolution. The Democrats are in bed with the financial industry, yet many of the rank and file Democratic voters (again including my relatives and friends) still believed that Obama and Clinton are not beholden to those interests. Unlike Sanders, Obama governed and Clinton campaigned as if catering to the financial industry, promoting social justice and environmental issues, made up for any neglect of working class and poor voters of all races. And again although Sanders was a Democratic Socialist, he understood that through him as the vehicle, the aims of revolutionary Marxism could be accomplished at the ballot box and without bullets. To see Bannon, publisher of Breitbart and thought of by unsophisticated leftists as a reactionary, and Trump, perceived as a gauche buffoonish billionaire, actually lead the first effective populist takeover since Andrew Jackson, is the deepest possible shock they could absorb. But of course this isn’t the first time this has happened. But even if other’s don’t see, the implication is clear. If Trump can deliver, it is the end of the Democratic Party, and all the consultants and lobbyists dependent on it.

I believe this is the real reason the left has become unhinged. Fear that Trump will sideline them and make them irrelevant.

How Trump will govern. It is still too soon to tell. His selection of Mike Pompeo for the CIA is probably a good thing. The CIA has become increasingly politicized, and Pompeo will most likely depoliticize it. However, he might repoliticize it. We will tell whether this is true, by seeing who he keeps and who he fires and who he hires. It is worth noting he has close ties to the Koch Brothers who opposed Trump. This is not necessarily bad since the Kochs want a reduced defense budget and an end to foreign wars, but it also means that if the CIA disapproves of Trump, the agency might seek to undermine his presidency and perhaps even plot a coup against Trump. I don’t know how much of a Trump loyalist Pompeo was.

Jeff Sessions for AG. This signals two things (1) Trump is serious about some form of deportation and (2) Trump is not willing to have the Justice Department continue prosecuting many of the civil rights cases that the Obama administration chose to. This also includes investigating police departments and having them enter into consent decrees.

Mike Flynn probably means a harder line toward Muslim countries and a willingness to label them terrorism sponsors. We will see whether this approach proves more beneficial than the way the Obama administration chose to deal with Islamic terror. Flynn, although no fan of Russia, will have no problem following Trump’s lead for better relations with the Russians.

James Mattis as defense secretary may or may not be a good thing. Perhaps the worst thing he did after retiring was joining the board of Theranos and as it became clear the whole single drop of blood test was a fraud, lobbied the Pentagon to use Theranos.

Unlike most recent defense secretaries, he is an experienced combat officer. He has been involved in innovative changes in the way that troops carry out orders and respond to changed conditions. He will probably oppose politically correct military if being politically correct impacts the combat readiness (which it does.) He will probably endorse policies similar to those espoused by William Lind and reduce forces overall and focus on the remaining forces to maximize their combat readiness.

The rest of the appointees are rumors. However, if Trump appoints a neo-conservative to Secretary of State that will be a very bad sign, unless Trumps intention is to have the secretary of state be a figurehead while he runs foreign policy out of the White House.

If he selects Laura Ingraham as his press secretary that is a good move. It helps to show that Trump’s is a woman friendly administration. Ingraham was a great defender of and promoter of Trump. She is articulate, very smart and knows both traditional and new media. Some press secretaries have a hand in shaping administration policies and I think if Ingraham is the press secretary she would not accept the job unless she believed she would have a major role in that regard.