Debates 2020

The Woke Primary Is Over and Everyone Lost

Maybe now would be a good time for Democrats to recognize that identity-politics signaling doesn't translate into votes.


In the run-up to tonight's Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, the last such contest before primary voting begins, one of the big storylines is about who won't be among the half-dozen candidates on stage.

"This debate is so white, it's not allowed to bring the potato salad," cracked Mediaite's Tommy Christopher. "The smallest, whitest one yet," concurred Politico.

With Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) exiting the race Monday, and both Andrew Yang and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) failing to meet the qualification thresholds, the resulting lineup is not just pale, it's ancient—the three highest-polling of the six debaters would each be the oldest president ever sworn into office. A fourth, Tom Steyer, is a hedge fund billionaire who literally bought his way to the podium, after an entire season in which Democrats debated whether billionaires should even exist. (An even older white billionaire, Michael Bloomberg, currently sits fifth in national polls but is not bothering with early primary/caucus states.)

So you can see why the younger, more progressive voices who punch above their weight in Democratic political discourse would be dismayed. "Bad for democracy," pronounced Salon's David Daley. "The system they have designed has suppressed the most loyal base of the Democratic Party," charged Color of Change Executive Director Rashad Robinson in The Washington Post. "Anyone with an understanding of civil rights law understands how the rules can be set up to benefit some communities. The Democratic Party should look at the impact of these rules and question the results."

That is certainly one theory. But I would suggest at least considering another. Cory Booker was one of five Gen X candidates (only one white male among them) who came into the race with ideologically mixed pedigrees—including not a small amount of what progressives would deride as "neoliberal" policy positions on deficits, trade, and education—but then competed with varying levels of believability on being the most woke, before eventually collapsing.

First Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.), then Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), Julián Castro, and now Booker all made the affirmative choice to either tack heavily left on economics or just downplay their past heresies in favor of talking up issues such as slavery reparations, Medicare for all illegal immigrants, and the racism/sexism of President Donald Trump. The abject failure of this approach is one of the greater underexplored storylines of the 2020 presidential nominating season.

Eleven months ago, this group accounted for about one-quarter of voter support in national polls: Around 12 percent for Harris, 6 percent for O'Rourke, 5 percent for Booker, and 1 percent each for Castro and Gillibrand. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), who would eventually vault herself up to near-frontrunner status, was then just a face in this crowd: 7 percent. Democrats were making similar murmurs of pride about their energetic and historically diverse field that you heard among Republicans in the first half of 2015.

What happened next? While Warren went on a white-paper spree of policy "plans" for every economic and regulatory issue under the sun, the Gen X Five engaged in more identity-politics emoting than a campus struggle session, only with less sincerity. O'Rourke agonized publicly about his ancestors owning slaves. Harris the cop tried gruesomely to rebrand herself as a hip Jamaican pot smoker. Gillibrand spent valuable debate-stage time talking about the need to educate people about her white privilege. Booker pushed for reparations and policed Joe Biden's language, while Castro was busy shaking his damn head that all these leftward lurches didn't go nearly left enough.

The late-night comedy skits wrote themselves. And by August, Warren was outpolling all five whippersnappers combined.

It's not that the more successful septuagenarian progressives shied away from calling Trump a racist—far from it. But voters did not have to guess about what got the northeastern senators up early every morning: It's the economic policy, stupid. What, exactly, was Kirsten Gillibrand's selling proposition? Why were O'Rourke and Booker (at least until the last of the latter's debates) running away from much of the stuff that made them interesting in the first place?

What makes their choice that much more curious is the persistent math of this race: The progressive bloc in the 2020 Democratic field has consistently lagged the centrists by about 10 percentage points. The RealClearPolitics running national averages for Biden (27.4 percent), Pete Buttigieg (7.8 percent), Bloomberg (6.2), and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (3.0) (D–Minn.) combine for 44.4 percent; Sanders (18.8 percent) + Warren (16.8) + Steyer (2.2) = 37.8. Instead of using their ideological dexterity to compete against a very old-looking frontrunner for the scared-of-socialists vote, the Gen Xers chased whatever progressive crumbs hadn't already been hoovered by two strong candidates.

The great irony of this blown strategy playing out even today is that Elizabeth Warren, after benefiting directly from her competitors' stumbles, seems to be making the exact same tactical mistake. By leaking a private conversation with Sanders in a not-particularly-convincing attempt to make him look possibly sexist, Warren's campaign is engaging in the same kind of bad-faith word-policing that so many voters find off-putting. Tonight's debate may well feature several minutes of linguistic hair-splitting and I'm-not-saying/I'm-just saying in place of conversations about what the federal government should and shouldn't do. That is not what got Warren into the top three.

Donald Trump, like successful populists worldwide, campaigned and won in part by railing against the perceived political correctness of the country's political, journalistic, and cultural elites. Continuing to mash that button is one way he strengthens his grip on the Republican Party, though there's some evidence that the attendant crude manners and cruel policies are driving away suburban voters, especially women.

Democrats and other Trump-averse political actors thus face a challenge: How to forcefully oppose the president's malodorous actions without alienating fence-sitters via in-group jargon and out-group condescension? The now-vanished field of Gen X candidates already tried out I-am-Spartacus histrionics, serial F-bombery, and even a bizarre if fleeting attempt to make school busing a litmus test. Forget the general election; none of this worked in the Democratic primary.

How Democrats react to #DebatesSoWhite might give us a hint of how they're approaching the Trump problem. Black voters have overwhelmingly preferred Joe Biden; Bernie Sanders has drawn strong Latino support. Those who pin such preferences onto structural racism are wandering directly into the briar patch of false consciousness, which is rarely a good look.

In a season where electability is the primary Democratic virtue, Democratic voters have been sending a consistent message: Identity politics ain't the ticket. Maybe next time around the Gen X candidates of all hues and genders will run as how they really are, as opposed to how Brooklyn Twitter wants them to be.

NEXT: Sorry, Bernie Sanders: Taiwan’s Single Payer System Isn’t an Argument for Medicare for All

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They might not be on the debate stage but the Chinaman and the Polynesian maiden are still in the race.

    1. I believe the proper term is "Chinaperson".

      1. I am perceiving a chink it what you did there ...

        1. Potentially a chunk.

      2. The Chinaman is not the issue here.

        1. And also not the preferred nomenclature.

          1. You seem a little yellow about using non-PC nomenclature.

            1. You seem a little yellow about using non-PC nomenclature.

              Donny, you're out of your element.

                1. go watch big lebowski

      3. And she's no maiden.

      4. Manchurian Candidate

      5. I like your slant on it

  2. >>Maybe now would be a good time for Democrats to recognize that identity-politics signaling doesn't translate into votes.

    why not just let (D) die along with (R) it's been fun watching them eat themselves

    1. Be patient. When one of them dies, so will the other. Ever seen "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence"?

      1. yes and now I'm singing the song thanks.

  3. "perceived political correctness"

    Just couldn't call a spade a spade, could you?

    Also, who the hell cares if Trump can't get suburban women to vote? They were the primary cause of all this nonsense to begin with. Look at the demographic data. They are the "highly educated" bleeding heart elitists who care more about decorum than real solutions and they have all the empathy in the world for poor little Hispanic boys but none for the lower class blacks and whites already here. They're the epitome of NIMBYism and the nanny state. They've gotten so bad that some people (not so jokingly) have started calling the 19th amendment a mistake.

    1. I've observed that too about the women's vote.

      It's not perceived either. It's flat in our faces. Their contempt for 'the others' is pretty clear if you ask me.

    2. ^Virtue signaler. You really care what these GOP trolls who show up on a libertarian website think. I don’t. Fuck them. Be yourself.

      1. A mortgage-welsher?

        1. Is LTAL commie-kid?

          1. "Is LTAL commie-kid?"
            If not, he's a dead ringer.
            Scumbag commie, not adult enough to honor his commitments, happy for others to clean the mess he leaves...
            All around piece of shit.

        2. Unlike our current POTUS, who welched multiple times; stiffed his creditors multiple times! Bankruptcy! That's how he got rich! AND he has made noises about (at least partially) stiffing creditors to Uncle Sam!

          Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less

          At least LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian isn't in a position to trash what little is left of the "full faith and credit" of the USA Government Almighty...

          All Hail Trump The Welcher! But do NOT lend him your money!

          1. ""Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less""

            Isn't that similar to the left's idea of dealing with student load debt?

            1. Kinda stale scoop here (below) but yes, I suspect that this is an honest summary there...

              Education is worthless (and expensive) enough already! You just wait till it is "free"!!!

              Student Loan Forgiveness: Where The Top Democratic Presidential Candidates Stand

          2. Tell your fellow schizo Dumbfuck Hihnsano about this, I'm sure he'll be interested.

            1. He is either on the depressed side of his bipolar illness, or the ward nurse took away his computer privileges again.

              1. "the ward nurse took away his computer privileges again."

                The Depends kept leaking when he "scratched" himself and it got all over the keyboard.

                Non-metaphorical thread-shitting.

                1. Trump-dick-suckers resort to personal insults when they have nothing factual or coherent to offer. Sad to say, the insults aren't even funny, just childish.

                  More news at 11:00!

                  1. “Trump-dick-suckers resort to personal insults“

                    And hypocrites hypocrite.

                    1. And your interesting or relevant link or factoid is... ???

                      Here's one for you and your fellow Trump-Dick-suckers...

                      We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

                      “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet”
                      He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me reality schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!
                      All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

                      Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

                    2. SQRLSY One
                      January.14.2020 at 7:10 pm
                      "And your interesting or relevant link or factoid is… ???"

                      You're a pathetic piece of juvenile shit...

                    3. “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me reality schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!! All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

                      If you're trying to change minds, you're not doing it right.

                      See, Trump is politically moderate and running against self-declared socialists. I couldn't care less how rotten Trump's personal life or morality is. We aren't electing a moral leader for the nation, we are electing the head of the executive branch.

                  2. Fuckin' LOL--now you're even adopting his mewling retorts. You two really are two peas in a (shit-munching) pod.

          3. SQRLSY One
            January.14.2020 at 3:19 pm
            "Unlike our current POTUS, who welched multiple times; stiffed his creditors multiple times! Bankruptcy! That’s how he got rich! AND he has made noises about (at least partially) stiffing creditors to Uncle Sam!"

            For someone so full of shit, it's surprising your keyboard isn't slippery with it.
            No, Trump did *not* welsh; his companies declared bankruptcy, and I'm sure a fucking idiot like you has no idea what difference that makes.
            Look it up, you pathetic piece of shit; you're too fucking stupid for me to waste my time. Suffice to say, he was at least attempting to start new businesses which would, yes, increase the wealth of humankind if it worked.
            Unlike the scumbag commie-kid who decided he just didn't want to pay his commitment.
            "At least LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian isn’t in a position to trash what little is left of the “full faith and credit” of the USA Government Almighty…"

            Oh, and stuff your TDS up your ass so your head has some company in there.

            1. "No, Trump did *not* welsh; his companies declared bankruptcy..."

              So... You gonna lend YOUR MONEY to "Trump's company" then, instead of to Trump? Whoop-de-fucking dooooo for difference! "Trump's company" paid Trump a BUNCH of money in salary, for sure! The people (lenders) who got stiffed, still got stiffed! And Trump DID make noises about ruining the full faith and credit of the USA!

              So at the end of the day, Sevo STILL sucks Trump dick, and has to resort to childish insults, instead of bringing relevant facts to defend Trump! You can't defend the indefensible! Trump is a sow's ear, not a silk purse, and Sevo can NOT change that!

              1. Your understanding of bankruptcy laws and corporate finance, combined with your "factual sources" lead me to believe you are a certified Bernie butt-boy. Hope you and that Kyle Jerkass or whatever his name is have a great time burning Milwaukee.

            2. Who effing cares what Trump did or didn't do in his business or his private life?

      2. Oh nice, now I'm a GOP troll apparently. A GOP troll who joined the GOP to make it more Libertarian and voted GJ in 2012, which was my first election. Yeah, nice.

        1. You got called a troll by a Media Matters fifty-center. Their opinion is meaningless.

          1. Media Matters is still operating? And I thought they got $.02 deposited in their accounts. Oh wait, that's CTR. Thank you for Correcting the Record 🙂

    3. "calling the 19th amendment a mistake."
      Not joking.

      1. There is a pretty strong correlation between expanded, crappy government since it was signed...

      2. don't get me started on their driving.

        1. Chicks or Chinks?

          Asking for a friend ...

          1. chicks. repeal the 19th and whatever allows them driver licenses

            1. ... but you can brind them with dentar fross ...

    4. The truth is, like it or not, women should not be allowed to vote... If you want a free society.

      Every bit of scientific evidence ever collected proves men and women think in fundamentally different ways. Basically all the stereotypes are true. Women are emotional instead of rational. They demand safety and security above freedom. "But what about the children!" works 99.98% of the time on them.

      Personally I WISH people were all equal and the same... But we're not. And the way female brains are wired makes them default against freedom and liberty, and unless we genetically engineer all women to have male wired brains, that will never change.

      So you can either allow women the vote... Or you can do what the Founding Fathers did, and deny females and stupid men (the land owning provision was a stand in for not a blow it case) the vote.

      That's all there is to it. We will never restore freedom while women can vote. We may well have to deny suffrage to idiot men again too through some mechanism. You don't have to LIKE those facts, but they are facts none the less. The US, and basically every other country in the world, shoots faaaaaaaar to the left the second women are given political power.

      This of course comes with the caveat "not all women," because there is individual variation... But at the statistical level it is 100% true. Also, this doesn't mean we need to be savages like the Muslim world. Women had property rights, could go to school, work, etc in the western world before they could vote... They just can't be trusted to directly have a say in things. They can gripe at their husband about stuff, and start civil societies for things... Just no direct ability to influence the law. That's still more freedom than even MEN have had throughout most of human history, so not much to bitch about IMO. Incidentally it's ALSO more freedom than either men OR women will have if we allow the commie control freaks to take over, which will surely happen with women voting.

      So take your pick, freedom or slavery.

      1. We will never restore freedom while women can vote

        Agent provocateur, trying to give libertarians a bad name?

        1. No. Just somebody who was eventually able to accept reality over decades of propaganda. As I frequently say on these "controversial" issues, it's absolutely NOT the way I wish the world was... I wish everybody was 100% equal. No fat people and fit people, short people and tall people, dumb people and smart people, pretty people and ugly people... But I have the balls and brains to accept that reality sucks, and not bend to lies and propaganda because it's easier.

          Men and women aren't the same. And I dare you to find almost any man OR woman who won't fully admit as much in a private conversation. We all KNOW it's true, but it's not polite to say it out loud.

          Look up ANY study you want on female/male psychology, personality traits, IQ distribution, personal preferences, etc. Every bit of science ever done shows there is a large difference in how we're wired. The differences in women, in practical terms, translate to them being anti liberty compared to men.

          Risk aversion, safety and security being their primary concern, putting emotions before facts. All of those, and more, spell doom for freedom and liberty. It's no coincidence that the entire democratic world shifted sharply to the left almost instantly after women started getting the vote. It's no coincidence they are to the left of men on EVERY issue under the sun in EVERY country in the world today too, as per polling.

          It just is what it is. The only way you could allow women the vote, and still have a free society, would be to set a high bar for both sexes to be able to vote. For instance a fairly difficult history/civics exam, or an IQ test requiring a chunk above average to pass, or limiting it to only net tax payers. If one had such hurdles mostly men would pass muster, and the women that did would be the less shitty ones. I'm 110% fine with this, and I think it is a fairer way actually.

          So you have to ask yourself the question: Is limiting the freedom of a subset of irrational idiots worth saving freedom for everybody, including them?! There's a reason the founding fathers didn't want stupid men voting too homeboy. Democracy is a bullshit thing to begin with, and universal suffrage will never produce a free society. Even universal male suffrage was a mistake.

          So make the choice: freedom, or virtue signalling because you're too cowardly to accept the reality that everybody already knows deep inside. Grow a spine!

          As for sabotaging libertarianism or whatever... Libertarianism is about freedom and dealing in reality. Nowhere does libertarian theory say that every irrational idiot should get to vote on everything. The founding fathers knew better, and didn't even let most men vote... We had a better, freer country then. Libertarianism also doesn't demand you deny science and facts like progressivism does. Pure libertarian dogma is a failed non starter to begin with. So the question is how to have the FEWEST intrusions on freedom, and provide the most liberty to the most people. There's no need to treat women like Muslims do. They can be free to do WTF ever they want, except vote. Women would actually be FREER in a society run by men, because it would be more libertarian. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

          1. More identity politics isn't going to help. strengthen your arguments and sharpen your brain instead of giving up and suggesting less freedom.

            1. Bullshit.

              It's not identity politics... It is objective scientific facts. Women DO NOT think like men. Dumb men don't make rational decisions either.

              Hence the founding fathers, not being concerned with being retarded SJWs, made the intelligent choice and limiting who could vote.

              As I said I'm actually in favor of objective standards with no race/sex/whatever involved. If you REALLY thing some moron with an 80 IQ who can't answer basic questions like the 3 branches of government, what year we declared independence from the UK, etc should be able to vote... You're the fool.

              As I said doing this WOULD maximize freedom for EVERYBODY, because intelligent people who could pass such objective screenings are more inclined towards libertarian ideals.

              You've been brainwashed your whole life to believe in democracy as something good in and of itself... IT IS NOT. The founders HATED democracy, and for good reason. Mob rule is bullshit. And letting idiots vote is just mob rule. You're the one who needs to do more hard thinking. I was brainwashed just like you when I was younger, but I got over it by educating myself to the facts. If you ever want freedom, universal suffrage is off the table.

              1. VEK - Jesus Murphy, what bridge do you live under? Me :: female, PhD in STEM field, voted libertarian my whole life, voting for Trump in 2020, and the real threat to the basic values of the Founders is blind idiotic hatred like the kind you spout. You sound more like the Democrats every time you post more of your sad drivel.

                1. Ladyhawk, did I ever say that there wasn't individual variation?


                  I said I would prefer an unbiased objective test, as that is not discriminatory, yet still achieves the objectives that are needed to save freedom.

                  If you're such an intelligent person, certainly you can understand the difference between mean, median, and mode... And know that outliers, on either end, always exist... But are rarely close to or similar to the mean, median, or mode.

                  With women the statistical averages and the norm speak for itself. Women are anti freedom due to their biology. There are a minority of awesome women like you, just as there are useless wrong thinking men... But YOU ARE NOT THE NORM. You're an aberration.

                  I don't understand why people have such a tough time accepting statistical facts about stuff. It doesn't have any bearing on any one individual, but looking at the high level data generally gives you a far more informed decision than simply saying "But it could go any which way depending on chance in any individual!"

                  It's an easy concept to understand. Actually though, this is perfect. You're being irrational and emotional, because the facts clash with your moral values, which is a rather female thing to do. The men that do this type of thing are of course the minority of irrational and emotional men.

                  Funny that.

                2. And let me ask you something...

                  Do you REALLY think there is ZERO difference in the way men and women think?

                  Honestly. NO DIFFERENCE? Answer honestly.

                  Everybody knows we don't think the same. If we don't think the same that means there will be different decisions made by the sexes. And there you have it. Anecdotal evidence alone from simply existing in the world should be enough for any reasonable person to realize this stuff. The only reason we try to ignore the obvious is decades of propaganda.

                  But if life experience weren't enough, there are the 10s or 100s of thousands of data points that back it up. Do you really think there's a global conspiracy that stretches from progressive Sweden, to communist China, to Nigeria that somehow forces women to answer with more emotional responses? Or that gives men higher math scores in every country on earth (presumably by suppressing womens math skills somehow), yet somehow ALSO encourages women to be better than men at language skills?

                  The level of conspiracy theory you have to believe in in order for male/female differences to not be real is mind boggling. It puts JFK assassination theories or 9/11 theories to SHAME for the level of ridiculousness one would have to believe.

                  We're just different on average. And that's okay. But accepting reality is the first step to figuring out how to navigate reality in the best possible way.

                  1. I'm thinking the situation you describe would take care of itself by just eliminating welfare recipients from the ballot box; as that alone would knock out close to 1/2 of the entire female population as well as 1/2 of the immigrants who immigrated solely to live off the labor of others (i.e. "free-ride") voter.

                    I don't think anyone, even women themselves, can deny your points but many, including me, feel that painting with such a large brush is probably going to end up swiping the 'variation' unjustly - so to avoid the SJW uprising and picking upon finer details; I'd shoot for, "If you cannot even take care of yourself - you have no business having a say in how to take care of society at large." campaign.

      2. Just define well and use property owner as the determinant of suffrage. Women who own property (capital/business) will vote their pocketbook if they have to pay the bills.

        1. Yeah, well that's what the founders did, as it is a reasonable proxy for not being a total fuck up. That alone would be decent enough, but I think a history/civics/general knowledge test would be better. It would let through smart people that haven't bought property yet for whatever reason (maybe they've moved a few times for career reasons so it has never made sense to buy), as well as exclude people born into wealth that are idiots.

  4. It sure is a pity that all those black and latino voters are forced to vote for an old white person. Maybe one day they’ll get to have options. If whitey ever lets them.

    1. Everything is so terrible and unfair.

    2. He was anointed by Obama. They must not disobey.

    3. Will the democratic debate stage be whiter than Mediate HQ? Politico HQ? Reason HQ? The SWPL site closed down too soon. Nowadays SWPL is mainly NLWP (not liking white people).

    4. No forcing necessary, creepy old Joe Biden is the top pick by far among black people to the chagrin of Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, who thought they owned those votes because of their skin color.

  5. And we wouldn't have to deal with Steyer or Bloomberg if it weren't for Citizens United.

    1. Wasn't the limit on self-funding struck down before then?

    2. Bloomberg isn't going to win anything, no matter how much he spends.

      Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claims he is ready to spend more than $1 billion in an effort to oust President Trump, but money may not be bringing supporters to his campaign.

      Just 45 people showed up to Bloomberg's latest rally with TV star Judge Judy Sheindlin in Texas on Saturday, according to the New York Post.

      “Unlike everyone else in this race, I think what’s important is beating Donald Trump,” Bloomberg told the sparse crowd of fewer than 50 people in San Antonio.

      And by the by, you know that approximately 40 of those people were probably from his own campaign, and the other 5 or so were his security detail.

      1. "Unlike everyone else"

        I didn't know Bloomberg was a comedian. The lack of self-awareness from him is hilarious. Alright Mayor Big Gulp msg, show us your bona fides!

      2. Bloomberg should adopt "OK Bloomer" as his campaign slogan.

      3. "“Unlike everyone else in this race, I think what’s important is beating Donald Trump,” Bloomberg told the sparse crowd of fewer than 50 people in San Antonio."

        Isn't it wonderful the D candidates are bringing such wonderful ideas to the table?
        OK, if you get elected, now you've 'beat Trump'. Now what, you narcissistic scumbag?

        1. Don't forget he'll also take all your guns and jack your taxes through the roof! Almost certainly allowing exemptions for security details for important people, and great tax writeoffs for the mega rich.

      4. Now now. There were 3or 4 homeless people that “showed up” just to get in from the cold for a few minutes.

  6. "This debate is so white, it's not allowed to bring the potato salad."

    "This debate is so white, it looks like an NBA bench."

    1. It is like a Vox editorial board meeting.

    2. Anyone know what potato salad has to do with anything?

      1. I dunno. I put bacon in mine.

      2. I was wondering that myself. I grew up thinking that Germans invented potato salad.

        1. I think that's the joke. If you let whitey bring the potato salad, you might get that vinegary German crap instead of real American potato salad with Miracle Whip.

          1. HOW DARE YOU?

            1. The Swedes can bring the meatballs.

              1. Who is gonna bring the watermelon?

                  1. How ironic.

                    Greta *IS* a Watermelon.

                    1. HSAH! i get it, red on the inside, green on the outside. that is funny

                1. Surely not Booker! He, just like Obama, is far too white to enjoy African America foods like watermelon! He's probably more of an avocado toast man.

              2. Wert de ferk?

            2. Do you think Greta even realizes shes a meme and everyone who is same laughs at her?

              1. No. It's easy to stay inside a bubble.

              2. The one positive thing I can say about her is that she has taken a lot of the shit talking in stride. Trolling back with her Twitter description or whatever has been pretty funny.

                Granted, she probably changes it on there and then runs and cries in a closet for a week.

          2. OK, here's the final answer from someone who actually did the research:

            Mayo is not white

    3. “This debate is so white, it looks like an Antifa rally.”

      1. “This debate is so white, it looks like a KFC on a Sunday.”

        1. Never been to a KFC on a Sunday in the South have you? After three hours of preachin', passing the plate, testimony, little old ladies passin' out, and the choir, who wants to cook?

      2. “This debate is so white, it looks like it has its own Wine Cave.”

      3. “This debate is so white, it looks like a Lizzie Warren's Family Tree.”

        1. That is only 1023/1024ths correct. 🙂

          1. What's fucked up is that my DNA test showed that I was only about 350-500 times more Native American than her... I always assumed it was a little higher than that, like maybe 1,000 times higher.

      4. “This debate is so white, it looks like Bernie Sanders' HOA meeting.”

      5. “This debate is so white, it looks like HiLIARy Clinton's Enemies List.”

        1. "This debate is so white, it looks like LeaveTrumpAlongLibertarian's neighborhood."

    4. The debate is so white it couldn't be held after Labor Day.

      1. Winner.

    5. The debate is so white, it looks like it could be worn by the KKK.

    6. “This debate is so white you can count their lips on one hand”

      1. This debate is so white, it got pulled over by the cops and no one was shot!

        1. This debate is so white, it has a net worth of millions of dollars on a public servant’s meager salary!

          1. This debate is so white, we have to renew the Patriot act even though those 2 things are unrelated but trust me it’s to keep kids safe.

            1. This debate is so white, we should defund planned parenthood and eliminate the inheritance tax!

        2. so white it got ignored by the po

          1. This debate is so white, it was upset Neil peart died

  7. Those who pin such preferences onto structural racism are wandering directly into the briar patch of false consciousness, which is rarely a good look.

    "Briar patch"?
    For a Harissean (Remusean?) metaphor I woulda gone with tar baby.

    1. Yeah, tar baby would have been better.

  8. The bottom line is that upper class white liberals run the Democratic Party. The party now exists for their benefit and to serve their interests. It has since at least 2006.

    Upper Class white liberals already voted for a black guy for President to show their tolerance and moral superiority. Sorry Cory Booker and Harris but you are 12 years too late. Having been down the road of voting for a black man to show their superiority, they are no interested in voting for a socialist to show their moral superiority. So it is going to be Warran or Sanders.

    1. It is the stunning disconnect that continues to surprise me. How do these Team D candidates fail to see that? That they are completely disconnected from the reality that their constituents live. They do all this traveling and talking and 'listening' and they do not 'get' what is on the minds of Americans. It is not rocket science.

      That is not solely a Team D thing, either; Team R is just as bad.

      1. they are completely disconnected from the reality that their constituents subjects live.

        Let them eat free cake!

        1. Corey Booker should have carried a hot sauce packet in his purse.

      2. See the story about the "Lancet" [British Medical Journal] study titled "The Consequences of Structured Whiteness Are Fatal" Seems white folks in an around the Midwest are killing themselves and each other with guns, votes, and "small government politics," I shit you not.

        1. THIS is what passes for "Gun Control Research" and why it should never be Government funded.

        2. “Lancet”

          Same publication that first gave Andrew Wakefield a soap box to popularize his anti-vaccine idiocy. Fitting.

          1. And published the 600,000 killed Iraqi citizens study back in 2004 or so.

            They've been politicized for awhile.

            Who was the clown who wrote the structured whiteness study? Kellerman?

        3. Quote from the Lancet's reviewer of the piece, from the Dr.'s Twitter account:

          I’m about to say something you might not be ready to hear.

          But I'm going to say it anyways.

          Despair isn't killing white Americans. The armed defense of structural whiteness is.

          The solution?

          Eliminate whiteness all together.


          Quote found at the Unz Review's review of the Lancet's review (LOL), as the reviewer, Dr. Boyd, protects her tweets. And if you wrote that kind of racist garbage, you'd protect them too.

          I don't think this Left 'elite' is much interested in compromise or conversation.

      3. That is not solely a Team D thing, either; Team R is just as bad.

        Team R *was* just as bad. Most of the ones who didn't get it got bounced from office or quit over the last two election cycles (e.g. Jeff Flake, Bob Corker), died (McCain), or are on their way out of office in the near future (Amash). Most of the people who do get the problems for constituents are on the Trump team...and that is a major credit to Trump for seeing problems that literally nobody else in the 2016 Republican presidential field noticed.

        On the Democrats' side, Bernie Sanders noticed the same things Trump did (to his limited credit), but his proposals for addressing them would all make the problems worse because Bernie is an economic idiot. Most of the rest of the party refuses to change because they're terrified that Pelosi will cut them off at the knees if they in any way challenge her dictates.

        1. UCrawford....Let's see how Team R comports themselves at the upcoming impeachment proceeding before declaring them 'cleansed from leprosy'. 🙂 But to your point: Yes, both POTUS Trump and The Bern are far more connected to their constituents; they saw our reality.

          A POTUS Trump vs The Bern match-up would be fascinating. Can you imagine those debates? Two NYC guys mixing it up? The ratings alone would be historic, let alone the discussion.

          1. I suspect it will go along the same lines of the Bernie Sanders - Ted Cruz town hall debates on CNN, in which Sanders got incontrovertibly crushed, even on a leftist network.

            Bernie only sounds smart when he's in a space where nobody challenges him or asks uncomfortable questions like "How much will that actually cost?" or "How do you intend to impose that when it's illegal?" or "Where, exactly, did that $10 million your wife defrauded the bank out of go to?"

          2. Basically, I think you can take the Trump administration at their word when they say that it literally does not matter to them who the Democratic nominee is because they fully believe they will destroy any of them.

            As for the impeachment proceeding, there's literally nothing the Republicans can do short of voting to impeach that could make them look worse than the House Democrats made their party look. I just hope that if they call witnesses that the first ones they subpoena are the Bidens.

      4. My mind has always been blown by how bad Pols are at figuring out what people want to see. Commies want all their commie crap... And moderates and conservatives want conservative crap.

        Trump got a lot of it right, but has totally botched it on other stuff. Like gun rights. Totally blowing it. He could be getting his base SUPER riled up about the gun control madness in Virginia right now, and he's completely ignoring it.

        Maybe someday if I get a few things tidied up in my personal life I will run for office... Because it just seems like everybody is so stupid and tone deaf that it wouldn't be that tough to work your way up the chain of command and do some good.

      5. See, progressives ought to care what their constituents think, since they believe that government is like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

        Actual conservatives and libertarians don't give a sh*t what their constituents think since their job is to make government smaller, that's what they run on, and that's hopefully what they will do when elected.

      6. "That they are completely disconnected from the reality that their constituents live."

        Let's explore this.
        What do D voters want? I work with many of them, upper middle class, well educated folk, and a common refrain has been "free stuff for poor people" for decades. Now it's "free stuff for me too because look at Europe". They view themselves as white knights for so long, that self-interest is ok when they do it. So yeah, mainstream D's have a fundamental disorder of moral superiority, often/quite typically combined with a laxness of personal morality.

        The Democratic POC (People of Color, bleh) I know have been frightened by the press playing on their fears of racism and vote D just because that's how blackness has been defined for them (my parents do it, my grandparents do it, I do it).
        I have a feeling they are starting to see that their personal success is all about the economy and less about social issues.
        My personal feeling is that the POC on stage were a finger in the wind to see if they would vote color or ideology.

        So I think they really do understand what their voters want. But they don't give a shit... after Obama they can taste it: total control of the economy... everyone's balls in their fist when they control healthcare, and Democratic majorities forever if they can only import enough D voters fast enough.

        One comment from a coworker that really stands out to me was about how she hates red state people because 'they stop me from living life the way I want to live it'.
        I mean, this chick lives in NY, but she had never even considered doing state-run healthcare in NY - the whole country must live HER WAY. Yet in her mind THEY are the ones oppressing HER.
        Democrats really are 100% unaware narcissists.

    2. That's why the gay man is still a contender, incidentally.

    3. John, as an upperclass Leftist myself is it ok if I tell you that I look down on lumpenproles who vote for Trump because they think they’ll be rich like me someday? Are you one of those? Bleech.

      1. as an upperclass Leftist myself

        Fuck, Iran didn't nuke your neighborhood after all? Too bad.

      2. Sorry but living in your parents' basement makes you lower class not upper class. Get a job before you start claiming to be above your station in life.

      3. Bitch, we all know you’re a welfare queen, and spend your extra time as a gloryhole attendant to make enough money to get high when your welfare checks don’t cover the cost of your meth.

      4. Nobody cares you piece of shit.

      5. Upper class leftists shouldn't exist.
        You'll be the first against the wall when the people finally get their revolution.

    4. Or the gay guy.

    5. neither of which can get elected

  9. Donald Trump, like successful populists worldwide, campaigned and won in part by railing against the perceived political correctness of the country's political, journalistic, and cultural elites.

    Perceived political correctness? I know Welch isn't bright but who does he think is going to believe that? WTF

    1. >>political, journalistic, and cultural elites

      also gives status to jornolists when they're the simple parrots of the political and cultural elites.

      1. Does a journalistic elite not exist? Not sure what people are objecting to here. Is it "perceived"? Perceptions are often in accord with reality.

        1. Town Criers for the Establishment. they *think* they're in, but if the planet was going to explode they wouldn't rank for the escape rockets

    2. Isn't it true at least in part that Trump appealed to people because he didn't play the PC game? Doesn't seem that hard to believe.

      1. No it is not Zeb. The problem is the use of the adjective "perceived". That implies it isn't real but just perceived that way. No, it is very real.

        1. OK. I wonder if that was the intended implication. As you know I can be charitable to a fault in interpreting these things.

        2. Anybody who thinks it is only perceived is a moron. It is as concrete and real as the sky is blue.

    3. He literally writes a whole article complaining about the Dems running on a political correctness platform and then calls the belief in this political correctness "perceived". I actually had to do a double take on such bizarre logic. But, gotta make sure to get shots in on the Repubs when critiquing Dems, otherwise the Reason Libertarian coveted "both sides" position would be in jeopardy.

      1. Isn't it said that instead of looking at policy, people tend to vote for the guy they'd prefer to sip chardonnay with?

        1. For the non commies, I believe you mean beer! And the funny thing is Trump doesn't even drink!

      2. I think you might be reading too much into "perceived". It doesn't have to mean that the perception is incorrect. I could be wrong.

        1. I hope so. But, the placement of that qualifier seems to shield the author's judgment call on the existence of political correctness.

          1. He totally threw it in there to pander to the PC tools. That is the Reason way!

          2. Here is another reason why he might have said "perceived" that I think is reasonable: it avoids the whole argument of whether and how the media and other social institutions are infested with PC. That's a big argument and not really relevant to the point at hand. However you define "PC" and however much you think it is a bad thing, much of Trump's success is because of the perception (right or wrong) that PC is out of control and infecting the news media and academia.
            If you are talking about why people vote as they do, their perception really is the relevant part.

  10. Actually, "identity politics" directly caused the most important evolution in the modern Democratic Party.

    A decade or two ago, Democrats could honestly claim they opposed the billionaire agenda. Now, however, they have completely embraced Charles Koch's enthusiasm for open borders. This paradigm shift occurred because they began viewing immigration not in economic terms, but in racial terms. Immigrants tend to be blacker and browner than the average American, so opposing open borders is automatically racist.


    1. Sometimes, I wonder if you are really a parody account, OBL...

    2. Immigrants tend to be blacker and browner AND RELIABLY VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS than the average American, so opposing open borders is automatically racist.

      There, FTFY OBL.

    3. Immigrants!? I think you mispronounced illegal invaders.

      1. Funny thing about the English language. Often different terms can be used to refer to the same thing.

    4. It's amazing how mainstream Rs are terrified of admitting the fact that all these brown immigrants are leftists, and that that is in fact the worst repercussion of immigration... Legal or otherwise.

      The truth is immigration is THE ONLY reason the USA has shifted so far to the left. You can hem and haw about it all you want, but it is a fact as per any statistic or poll you want to look up.

      If we had thrown out illegals before they made 10s of millions of anchor babies, and been more stringent on the numbers of legal immigrants as well, we wouldn't be having these problems.

      The vast majority of white Americans support ALL the major American ideals. Freedom of speech, gun rights, limited government as a general concept, etc. We obviously wouldn't be Libertopia if we were still an 85% white nation, but we'd just be having endless reruns of Carter vs Reagan and Bush vs Clinton.

      The whole spectrum has shot hard left EXCLUSIVELY because of immigrants and their bad politics. Like it or not, those are the facts. And more libertarians need to REALIZE the real world implications of allowing one freedom, international freedom of movement, to destroy literally every other freedom. It just doesn't make sense!

      Even if you want to take the position that eventually these people can be turned around to American ideals... You have to consider the time factor. If you let in too many leftists too fast, faster than you convert the old ones, you're doomed. This is what we did. Hence we need to slow shit down and HOPE that Hispanics and Asians don't become a perpetual Big Government voting block like blacks, and that they can be convinced of sane policies.

      1. ok, yes but, if the R's hadn't thrown out their social agenda they might get more latin american catholic votes.

        1. I think that's BS.

          The fact is the Rs ARE still the ones who push their religious social agenda, just not quite as hard.

          The truth is the Hispanics are just like blacks... They vote left because they're Hispanic, and Hispanics vote left. It's racial solidarity more than anything else. FYI I'm originally from California, and part Mexican myself.

          ALSO, it is because Hispanics are poor on average, like blacks. So stealing from rich white people to give to yourself has appeal. ALSO, since the vast majority of the Hispanic population in the USA is either illegal themselves, or children of illegals, grandchildren at MOST, these people have strong recollections of living in socialist hell holes... So everything here seems super right wing to them to begin with, so even things native born white Americans think of as being leftist as fuck seems "centristy" or even still right wing to them.

          That same dynamic is true for Asian or European immigrants as well. Why would anybody be mad at having their AR15 taken away??? Why not ban all high caliber weapons! In the UK you can't buy basically any semi auto with a caliber above .22LR, so to be able to keep "lesser" semi auto guns still seems "extreme" to them.

          There's plenty of other stuff, but those are the big ones. The only hope of assimilating Hispanics without completely destroying the country is to kick out all of the illegals, and stop large scale immigration going forward... If that happens with the intermarriage rate with current white Americans, we can basically culturally white wash Hispanics over a generation or two, and eliminate their feeling of "otherness" and get them on board. If 30 million more show up in the coming decades this can't ever work though.

  11. At unreason, we get TDS articles, Democrat articles, or sky is falling articles.

    1. SO, what should they do? Ignore the Democratic primaries?

      1. Praise Trump all the time. That's the only thing that would make LC happy.

        1. I think what would make LC, Esquire happy is pretty much the same things that would make me happy.

          Actual separation of powers, not judges who legislate and legislators who delegate.

          A fundamental respect for the BOR, all of it.

          Another Gorsuch on the Supreme Court [murder turtle has already populated the rest of them with FEDSOC candidates]

          That would be a good start.

          1. I don't think those things are within Reason's capabilities.

  12. Democrats have never done well running on their politically-correct bonafides. B Obama ran as a progressive-moderate unity candidate who, btw, was mixed race and had an inspiring rags-to-riches story of rediscovering and integrating his racial past. Nevermind whether this story is accurate, that is what he successfully campaigned on. No Democrat has ever achieved success by running as a social justice warrior in any election that wasn't completely dominated by leftists.

    Trump is New York real estate developer pond scum, and he's primed to win because the Democrats couldn't understand that the rest of the country either doesn't give a damn or is actively hostile to being on the receiving end of esoteric racial disputes among the Brahmin caste.

    1. Being one of the wealthiest families in Hawaii is rags?

      1. I think that comes under the "Nevermind whether this story is accurate, that is what he successfully campaigned on."

  13. I've never seen a bigger bunch of lame ass losers than the Democrat field. And I watch another bunch of incompetent, corrupted morons with the Liberals up here.

    Justin has grown himself a beard. Awww. He wants to look like a revolutionary commie.

    I'm Gen X. They're the least Gen-X people I've ever seen man.

    1. He wants to look like a revolutionary commie.

      Well, why wouldn't he want to look like his real daddy Fidel?

      1. Well, Margaret couldn't get pregnant where Pierre Trudeau liked to stick it. Anyway, he was too busy fucking Western Canada to try and impregnate his wife.

    2. To be fair, the Repub clown show in 2016 was pretty bad itself, leading to Trump. Not nearly as bad as the dreck on the D side, but there is precious little electability in Washington. It's shit sandwiches all the way down and across.

      1. Honestly, Cruz or Rubio probably had a serious shot if the neocons hadn't fucked up and bankrolled Jeb's candidacy. The neocons are just as stuck in a media and social bubble as their progressive Beltway counterparts, and completely failed to realize that literally no Republican outside of Megacity One wanted to see a Bush run for President, that the name had become politically toxic.

        When these guys pushed Jeb as the presumptive front-runner to be Hillary's sacrificial lamb, Trump recognized that he had a golden opportunity to increase his profile by taking a giant shit all over him. It's no accident that he declared the day after Jeb entered the race--I wouldn't be surprised if he was holding off his own announcement just to be sure that Jeb was going to run before he declared.

        If Jeb had stayed out, 2016 might have been a relatively staid, milquetoast affair and Trump never would have gotten above 5% in the polls.

        1. Maybe.
          Rubio sucks.
          As big a neocon as any

        2. Cruz wasn't going to have a chance---which is a shame---because he shares the same problem 1960 Nixon had. He looks creepy on television. Especially to women. I think the 50's Red-hunter he looks the most like is Tailgunner Joe, but YMMV.

          Can't tell you how many women I've had tell me the guy just gives them the creeps. Too bad, because he'd be infinitely better at lawfare and actually advancing a Constitutionalist presidency than Trump could dream of doing. Though Trump hasn't been bad.

          I hadn't thought of the idea that destroying Jeb! gave Trump an insurmountable boost, but it's got a lot of truth to it. Also, Cruz never got all of the socons to buy into to him, despite his platform. Losing them to Carson, and then, humiliatingly, to Trump, must have been a bitter pill for a guy who actually is fairly pro-Life.

          1. I'd love to see Cruz as Attorney General, or appointed to the Supreme Court. It would drive the Democrats even more insane.

            1. I'd love to see him on the Court as a replacement for Thomas, who's supposedly been trying to retire for about the last five years or so. He'd be great there, and would have more longevity than trying to remain in a Senate seat in an increasingly brown, left-wing Texas.

              Absolutely no way that election should have been as close as it was. I know O'Rourke outspent him bigly, and I know it was trendy to vote for the vapid fuck, but that's the sort of election he should win by 8-9 points. Not 2.

              1. Cruz to SCOTUS is what I've been saying since Trump won.
                Unfortunately, I don't thin Cruz has given up his POTUS ambitions just yet

              2. Demographics man... Hispanics are overwhelmingly left wing.

                My home state of California would still be a center-right state if not for the mass scale illegal immigration, and the crap ton of legal immigrants too.

                I REALLY want to move to Texas, but I'm smart enough to know it is already lost... And with it probably the Republic. So I'm going to move to one of the most conservative states in the US that will stay that way until the whole thing burns down instead, despite me liking the "idea" of Texas more.

                1. "I REALLY want to move to Texas, but I’m smart enough to know it is already lost… And with it probably the Republic"

                  Honestly, it has about 10-15 years left. Some due to seemingly unbridled immigration from Latin and South America, India/Pakistan, and MENA. Others due to immigration from high-tax states like CA, IL, NY, MD. You can't believe the number of out of state license plates you'll see driving around, and most of the drivers bring their shitty politics and general attitudes to Texas with them.

                  Few reply, "Good Morning," anymore when you greet someone walking. That wasn't the case 20 years ago.

                  Further. Dallas and Austin have adopted idiotic decriminalization policies for petty theft and homelessness. Houston will not be far behind. And are then surprised when anecdotes of getting burglarized or hassled by homeless sprout up like mushrooms. Anecdotes, because the city councils would sooner admit to being racial eugenicists, than admit that their policies don't work.

                  Ironically, and again it depends on whose stats you read, Cruz was more favored by newcomers to the state, than by natives. Which only proves how blue the Valley up to San Antonio is.

                  I wouldn't look to establish roots in Texas, if the trends hold. I see this place turning into Virginia in 10-15 years. Speaking of which, I wonder what the Dems think they'll accomplish with those bills?

                  1. Yup, all true. The combo of foreign immigrants, and prog idiots moving from prog states, only to vote for all the same things that ruined those places seals the deal. Purist libertarian idiots just don't get it on the immigration thing. It has already sowed the seeds of destruction for the USA as the nation it once was.

                    Here's the thing... I grew up in Cali for a little less than the first half of my life. My family then moved to Washington to get away from the stupid. That was 20 years ago. Back then Washington was a very centrist state. Power tended to never be all on lock down for either party, so reasonable compromises tended to happen. Democrats were less crazy back then too. IMO it was actually almost a perfect combo of conservative and liberal policies that actually make sense, almost about as libertarian as any state in the US got. Low taxes, awesome gun laws, lots of personal freedom, modest regulation, etc.

                    Then the wave of immigrants from abroad and left leaning areas. Just in the last few years we went from being one of the best states in the US for damn near everything, to one of the worst on a LOT of stuff, and working on ruining the few good things left. It really sucks. I would have gladly lived here the rest of my life before it went to shit.

                    So, I've already done the "It'll be cool for 10-15 years" thing, and don't want to do it again. I would say Texas is more like 5-10 years before the bad stuff starts, although it won't be totally awful for a bit longer as it takes time to ruin a place.

                    The variable is that a lot of people moving there are also conservatives/libertarians who either don't know the trends or are willing to risk it. So depending on how many of them move there to balance out the leftists, that could change the time frame... But sooner or later it is done barring something crazy changing. But I don't want to put up with this shit anymore. I hate moving anyway, and want to really try to make a life somewhere.

                    Hence Idaho baby! In theory it could be overwhelmed pretty quickly because it has a small population... And Boise is having a lot of idiots moving there, but thus far the trend lines are such that it doesn't seem like it will ever flip in the foreseeable future. Even with progs going to Boise, there are also tons of conservatives and libertarian minded people moving to ID in general.

                    My thinking is that by the time Idaho flips the entire rest of the country will have long been fucked, or we'll have had a civil war, or split into multiple countries, or whatever crazy shit ends up going down. Idaho is certainly one of the last places, if not the last place, in the USA that will go bad.

                    1. I would say Texas is more like 5-10 years before the bad stuff starts, although it won’t be totally awful for a bit longer as it takes time to ruin a place.

                      Gray's comparison to Virginia is apt. Virginia is a blue state now, and the transition took about 20 years, from 2000-2019, thanks primarily to so many left-wing government workers getting homes in the NoVa suburbs of DC. Texas will go the same way--it's red now, but will start turning purple as early as the 2022 election cycle, will likely go for the Democratic candidate in 2028, if not as early as 2024, and the transition to being a long-term blue state will be complete by 2036 or 2040. Same thing has happened in Colorado and Nevada, and will happen in Arizona.

                      The irony is that the upper Midwest from Pennsylvania to Minnesota, save for Illinois, will probably turn fully Republican during that timeframe. Trump didn't win these states by much, but Republicans are winning state-wide election cycles on a much more regular basis. Trump damn near won Minnesota, which hasn't happened for a Republican in nearly 50 years, and I suspect it's largely ballot shenanigans in Minneapolis-St Paul and the huge Somali immigrant bloc that have kept it from becoming a legitimate purple state, trending to red. However, Minnesota is considered one of the worst states to retire in, and a lot of Boomers that reflexively voted Dem for decades there will end up moving to the Southwest, California, or Florida.

                    2. Yup. Pretty much spot on. There's always the transition period, and Texas is only a few years away from that starting. No thanks!

                      Well, the midwest is going red because of white voters being all but forced out of the Democratic party by their crazy.

                  2. Ironically, and again it depends on whose stats you read, Cruz was more favored by newcomers to the state, than by natives. Which only proves how blue the Valley up to San Antonio is.

                    The US made a big mistake not letting Mexico keep the part of Texas south of the Nueces. That area has always been mostly occupied by Mexicans and Indians, and the towns along the Rio Grande had a mutual-trade economy with each other that didn't exist along the Nueces. The Valley's also been one of the poorest, most dysfunctional areas of the state for decades.

                    1. Or just not enforcing shit as needed...

          2. Watching the moment Cruz broke in the primary was amazing (and I like Cruz just fine).
            It was just body blow, body blow, body blow accumulating and you just knew he was going to go down. To his credit, he endured it for a while.
            But when he broke, he went down hard.
            Maybe the most spectacular political KO I've ever seen

        3. "MegaCity One." LOL. Why not; they already think 'they are the law.'

        4. Jeb!

          When I saw that campaign slogan, it made me think of this.....

          Just as hilariously cringeworthy and dorky.

  14. Gen X Five engaged in more identity-politics emoting than a campus struggle session, only with less sincerity.

    I'm seeing a lot of this going on amongst my left-leaning friends and acquaintances from high school, nearly all of whom are white, all of whom have steeped themselves in following politics and the "news," and it's nauseatingly obnoxious. My generation is seriously the biggest pathetic bunch of bandwagon-jumpers this country has ever seen. But it's even worse among the middle-aged Gen-X crowd of white liberal dingleshits like Beto and Gillibrand, who turned the virtue-signaling, self-loathing obsequiousness popularized by that scuzzbag Peggy McIntosh into a way of life.

    1. Red, as a GenXer myself, I have to agree. While Boomers may take the cake for self-indulgence and entitlement; uberlib, middle-aged GenXers dominate the field in useless wheel spinning. And we're the generation that will be tasked to start the clean-up process after the Boomers get done screwing the rest of us.

      Talk about generational disappointment. I look at my fellow GenXers and wonder WTF happened to this group. So many just lost their way.

      1. A big part of it, I think, is that Gen-Xers have been steeped for so long in cynicism and generational insecurity that they instinctively flock to whatever is popular at the moment. The Boomers certainly had it, but Gen-Xers are particularly unique in how easily they are influenced by mass media (look how often we speak in a patois that's steeped in references to popular culture from the 70s-90s, and readily parrot whatever we hear on the news), while assuming the pretense that they don't trust what's supposedly being pushed on us.

        This insecurity has a lot of socio-economic roots. For starters, there's far fewer of us than the Boomers or Millennials, so we've always been outnumbered when it comes to driving cultural trends. We're the first generation in US history where divorce and living in single-parent homes, or homes with stepparents/stepsiblings became common. We're the generation that straddles the Pre-Internet/Post-Internet ages. We're the first generation to stop treating church as both a community and spiritual exercise, and many have rejected religious belief altogether. We're the first generation that's been indoctrinated with the belief that anything masculine is bad. Depending on when we were born, we've seen at least three, if not four, very sharp and painful economic recessions during our formative years and into adulthood. And it doesn't help that today's mass media in particular operates, by design, to keep society in a constant state of free-floating, low-grade anxiety.

        1. Check out the theory of the generational 4th turning. There's a lot of interesting stuff in the theory, which is essentially all about how there's a cycle of generations that tends to develop in surprisingly similar ways, and has repercussions for the world.

  15. """The smallest, whitest one yet," concurred Politico.""

    Did Politico forget about the Dem primary field in 2016?

    1. If he chose Harris as his running mate, they'd be at least one Black between them.

      1. Nah dude. MAYBE a Griff. MAYBE.

  16. ""How Democrats react to #DebatesSoWhite might give us a hint of how they're approaching the Trump problem.""

    DebatesSoWhites could have started in 2016.


    Bernie Bro campaign worked caught on camera being honest about what the left would do if they ever got into power.

    Then he dropped some serious truth about Bernie's "education plan." Jurek revealed, "that's kind of what Bernie's whole free education for everybody...because we're going to have to teach you to not be a f**king Nazi." Perhaps the scariest part was Jurek's high regard for the benefits of Soviet gulags. "There's a reason Josef Stalin had gulags," he said. "And actually, gulags were a lot better than what the CIA has told us that they were. Like, people were actually paid a living wage in gulags, they had conjugal visits in gulags. Gulags were actually meant for, like, reeducation."

    As if that's not stupid enough, Jurek continues, "Greatest way to break a f**king billionaire of their like, privilege and their idea that they're superior, go out and break rocks for twelve hours a day. You're a working-class person and you're going to learn what that means."

    Jurek also goes into what sounds like a detailed plan for civil unrest that will start in Milwaukee and spread to all the major cities in America if Bernie Sanders doesn't get the DNC nomination. "Be ready to be in Milwaukee for the DNC convention. We're gonna make 1978 [he means 1968] look like a f**king Girl Scout f**king cookout." Then he issues a threat to police. "The cops are gonna be the ones that are getting f**king beaten in Milwaukee."

    It is easy to laugh at these retards only because they don't have any power. They may be ridiculous and stupid but they are dead serious.

    As an aside, it never fails to amaze me how narcissistic every leftist is. Despite the 20th Century being filled with one idiot like this after another getting real power, doing something awful, and then ending up with a bullet in their own head because the revolution always eats it's own, it never occurs to these people that that is what would happen to them if they ever got their way. They all are so narcissistic they really believe that they are special and the party would never turn on them. Leftism really is a form of mental illness.

    1. They are serious, and they are a mortal threat. Not only must they get stomped at the ballot box, but also their dangerous beliefs need to be exposed for what they are.

      1. The problem is that this presumes they'll accept the results of the election as valid if their socialist of choice doesn't win. They've given no indication that will be their behavior after November and every reason to believe that they'll escalate the street violence they're already instigating.

        1. I wish them luck with that. They can escalate all they want. The problem is that outside of a few leftist run college towns all that will do is get them thrown in prison. Street violence only works if the cops look the other way or you have so many people the cops can't stop it. They don't have the numbers to overwhelm the cops anywhere and even if they did, this country is armed well enough they would get their heads blown off if they attacked anything outside of the center cities. And outside of a few far left cities, the cops won't look the other way.

          1. The problem is that outside of a few leftist run college towns all that will do is get them thrown in prison.

            Portland and Seattle beg to differ. And the same can probably be said of any major cities who recently put a Soros-backed candidate into a prosecutorial office.

            1. Or any cities where far-left leadership controls the city council or mayor's office.

            2. That is a very small number of cities. And it includes only the cities themselves not the suburbs. Also, Portland and Seattle are almost entirely white. You can get black people to riot but it has to be over something they care about. The black community could give a fuck less if Bernie is elected President. So, they are not going to riot over this. And they are not going to let a bunch of dumb white people show up and burn down their city.

              These clowns will get their asses kicked.

              1. Philadelphia, Seattle, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, Houston,'s not nearly as small as you might think. And Soros seeded prosecutor races across the entire country.

                Go look at what Antifa's doing and tell me that they're not going to riot once they don't get their way and their socialist masters tell them Trump cheated them with Russian help again. Most of those idiots still believe the conspiracy theories about Russian collusion.

                And they don't have to be a majority of the country to do a ton of damage.

                1. I wouldn't be surprised if they riot. I am just saying they are going to get their asses kicked and likely end up in prison. Even if the police in the cities you list let them get away with it, that just means they will end up attacking a bunch of Democrats. There are very few Republicans in those areas. If they go out of those jurisdictions and into the suburbs, they will end up dead or in prison.

                  It is like where I live in Washington DC. Montgomery Country is 95% Democrat. But they have an absolutely fascist police force. If the woke mobs ever came up from the District into Bethesda or Potomac, people would have a stroke and the mobs would end up in jail if they were lucky enough not to be killed.

                  1. Who do you think will throw them into prison?

                    We had the leaders of the CIA, FBI, DOJ, and State Department attempt to pull off a coup against the duly elected government of the United States, and so far the only people who've gone to prison are people who worked for the attempted target of that coup. We have a current FBI Director who keeps telling us all is well with the nation's primary law enforcement agency, even as his boss tells him he's wrong. Our nation's courts just put a leftist apologist for FBI abuses in charge of fixing the judicial system that allowed the coup plotters to abuse their power.

                    Who do you think will be standing up to them, especially if the city leadership tells the police to stand down (like they do consistently in Portland) and none of the rioters have any fear of prosecution?

                    1. The state and local authorities. do you really think the police chiefs and mayors of rich white suburbs are going to let antifa show up and terrorize the communities? I don't think so. It happens in places like Portland but even then only in certain areas. I guarantee you if antifa went up into the Queen Anne district of Seattle to fight the revolution, the police and DA would suddenly decide it wasn't funny anymore and put a stop to it in about five seconds. You are judging the situation by what he see on the news, which makes it look bigger than it actually is. It is not like they are running around terrorizing the entire city. They are in a very small area and that is for a reason.

                    2. So you think the far-left state officials of California, Oregon, and Washington are going to intervene against a bunch of left-wing protesters?

                      do you really think the police chiefs and mayors of rich white suburbs are going to let antifa show up and terrorize the communities?

                      Most of the cities around Seattle are leftist governments too. You have to branch out quite a ways from the city before you start encountering a city government with any kind of conservative bent. Los Angeles pretty much has Orange County, and even that's moved blue. Portland? Forget about it. And let's not even get into Washington's recent spate of disarming citizens within the city.

                      Their goal isn't to burn the city to the ground. It's to force the federal government to intervene to feed their narrative about the Dictator Trump being an evil fascist nightmare.

                    3. The feds wouldn't intervene. Why would they? The States have plenty of resources to stop this. And again, if you think even California would allow Antifa to actually attack well off neighborhoods full of important people, you are very mistaken.

                    4. do you really think the police chiefs and mayors of rich white suburbs are going to let antifa show up and terrorize the communities?

                      Rich white suburbs? Abso-fucking-lutely. Out in the sticks? No chance in hell, because those folks might actually shoot. The last thing the bourgeois want is to get in a ruckus and risk being temporarily inconvenienced with a bloody nose by having to possibly stand up for themselves. They are the biggest go-along-to-get-along types in society, and that's why they tend to get emulsified in these left-wing uprisings.

                      If the upper class actually had any balls, Antifa would have been reduced to a grease spot a long time ago.

                    5. "The state and local authorities. do you really think the police chiefs and mayors of rich white suburbs are going to let antifa show up and terrorize the communities?"

                      I really hope so

                    6. Keep in mind that in San Francisco, the city with the highest property values in the United States and one of the wealthiest populations, the state government basically told the transient population that they're free to rob people as long as the theft doesn't exceed just over $900.

                      They'll throw the wealthy population under the bus in a heartbeat, unless it's one of the politicians.

                    7. Incidentally, Project Veritas dropped new video of Sanders supporters saying what they plan to do if Sanders doesn't win.


                    8. Worse is what they plan to do if he wins...

                    9. I think his point is that the double standard loving leftists would even put the kibosh on ANTIFA if they were to go trash the neighborhoods where THEY live.

                      Rioting in downtown Seattle? Sure. Rioting in Madison Park, Upper Queen Anne, Magnolia, etc... Not so much. That's his point. I don't think he's far off the mark. They all love illegal immigrants, but they sure as hell wouldn't let them live in their neighborhood! Commute there to scrub their toilets, sure. But not live there.

                2. to be fair, a lot of that Russian Collusion crap was disaffected Hillary voters, not so much Bernie supporters. I won't speak for Antifa specifically, but honestly, I'm not particularly worried about some upper middle class white kids rioting across America. Sure, they create real havoc in Portland, criminally so-- but that's because they have the explicit support of the local authorities. Most people in flyover country are more than happy to let Portland be Portland.

              2. Civil unrest that stays unchecked at the source tends to spread. Especially if the leadership unwilling to keep it in check wants it to spread.

                1. Not in a federal system where there are independent jurisdictions. If the next town over won't tolerate it, it won't spread. Look at the riots in Ferguson or anywhere else for that matter. They never spread to the suburbs. Never have.

      2. I favor criminalizing the practice of Marxism. It’s essentially the establishment of slavery anyway. So I fail to see a problem.

    2. One of the first things Khomeini did was have his leftist Iranian supporters shot.

      1. Because he wasn't a complete idiot.

        Mao said something similar once about revolutions. The ideology doesn't really matter, because once you get the suckers into the tent, the only thing that matters is which clique is able to seize complete control of the party...after which it is imperative that they annihilate everyone who isn't 100% on board with the new leadership team.

        Ideology is's only about the pursuit of power for the sake of power alone.

        1. Hitler did the same thing with the SA. The SA was useful when he was out of power. Once he was in power, then he didn't want or need a bunch of street thugs running around causing problems. So, one of the first thing he did upon taking power was eliminate the SA and replace them with the Guistapo who were more professional and easier to control.

          1. Yup. He executed all of his political rivals on the Night of the Long Knives...whether they were still in power or not.

            Leftist groups don't care about the ideology. That's just the sales pitch to get the suckers in the tent. And they react violently when they feel their grasp on power slipping away.

            1. Leftist groups don’t care about the ideology. That’s just the sales pitch to get the suckers in the tent. And they react violently when they feel their grasp on power slipping away.

              I think you are onto something, but that paragraph needs some work.

              1. It's not actually my observation, it's the observation of David Galula, who spent a significant amount of his life fighting and studying communist insurgencies around the world and coming up with ways to defeat them.

                He noted that in all communist insurgencies, the ideology was nothing but the sales pitch and was largely irrelevant. The groups were only about obtaining power at any costs, and power was the end goal, not a means to an end. Orwell made the same observation in "Nineteen-Eighty-Four"

          2. Hitler largely did that because he cut a deal with the German military high command. They said they wouldn't play ball as long as he had what was essentially a private army... So he took out the brownshirts, and gained the backing of the military.

            Never mind that the SA was basically his most ardent supporters, they didn't have as much to offer him as the German military aristocracy.

    3. That's um, really, really, really troubling.

      And the scary part is they're IN THE SYSTEM now. From Wheeler in Portland to the socialist in Seattle to Chesa Boudin as DA in SF to the four ding bats in Congress.

      America better wake up to this 'perception' because when lefties announce what they really want to do, history has taught us that we should take them at face value.

      1. Every time leftists have taken over a country from Russia to China to Germany to Cambodia to Venezuela, they have said in so many words what they planned to do and then done it and worse once they came into power. Yet, every time all "right thinking people" assure everyone that leftists are really wonderful and mean well and don't actually mean to do any of the things they say.

        1. That's because most people underestimate how horrible other people can be and look to attribute the most benign or friendly qualities to others to humanize them.

          Those are generally the ones who communists look to enslave, as long as they're not an influential professional (in which case they'll simply kill them first).

          1. Which is why I am 110% okay with using violence against communists if they start it. Self defense isn't a crime! If these commies want to start some shit, I think they're going to be in for a rude awakening when they get their asses handed to them.

            The American gun owner owns more firearms than every military on earth combined... And no matter what laws leftists pass, the vast majority of them will never be turned in. So I wish the commies the best of luck.

    4. The revolution doesn't always eat it's own, sometimes the kulaks and wreckers get to them first. Ask Ceaușescu.

      A bullet in the head is typically how it ends though, you're right about that. You can vote your way into socialism, you have to shoot your way out of it.

    5. The e in Jurek is silent.

    6. Holy fuck. He's actually trying to rehabilitate the idea of re-education camps. Useful idiot indeed. But who's Stalin in this picture. I don't think Bernie has it in him.

      1. Zeb,
        If we keep the metaphor, Bernie's either Marx or Lenin: inspirational leader or figurehead, who arouses the passions of the crowd, but is gradually superseded by a sociopathic schemer. I think of him as a Marx, with an extant following. I think he lacks the skills of Lenin.

        Really, his highest purpose is to try and be a beatific figure for Socialism, ideally resulting in his death. Martyrs can't later disappoint the flock.

    7. Do not think this kind of personal antipathy and hatred is only limited to Bernie supporters and those further left. From the liberals and lefties I talk to, there are plenty of people, ostensibly more moderate, who've bought into the dehumanization propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

      They'll feel bad when the police start throwing their enemies in jail, but they'll think the guy deserved it. "How did he think he would get away with hoarding the gasoline generator? Didn't he know he was supposed to turn those rifles in? I never thought she'd be the kind of person to hurt fully misgender someone on Facebook." And so on.

      Things have gotten a lot more polarized in the last ten years, and government institutions that used to be above political infighting are now used against political enemies: Census, IRS, FBI. Doubtless it will get worse.

      Pray to your deity that we don't have an economic crash soon.

      1. Pray to your deity that we don’t have an economic crash soon.

        That's inevitable now, but we might be able to delay it until after the election.

        1. It's always inevitable, but whatever Trump is doing, it doesn't seem to be triggering one.

        2. Seriously. It honestly seems like a lot of powers that be have been TRYING to screw the economy up by pushing that everything is going wrong... But things have actually been going too good for anybody to buy it.

          But we are overdue for a normal correction, and I certainly hope that happens after the election. It definitely will if Trump doesn't get a 2nd term, as ANY of these Dems are going to terrify investors!

          1. I'm not worried so much about a crash qua crash, though it would be awful. I'm worried because things going well, with people having jobs and full bellies, is one of the only threads holding this blanket of a country together. It sure isn't any shared appreciation for America or other Americans.

            The metaphor fails at the end, because when a blanket comes apart, the pieces of it don't try to tear the other pieces to shreds.

            All I'm saying is that I can see this country resembling the fall of Yugoslavia rather quickly, and the stellar economy is one of an increasingly shrinking number of reasons why it doesn't.

            1. You're totally correct.

              I mean, personally all I'm hoping for is another 4 years of Trump holding back the shit storm that is guaranteed to happen sooner or later, just because it gives me 4 more years to get prepared for the chaos.

              The fact that everybody is doing well financially IS one of the only things holding shit together now. If we had a massive depression that could easily set off the Boogaloo. LOL

              Thing is, I think it's 100% guaranteed no matter what happens. The fact is that 1/3 of the country absolutely CANNOT live in the same nation as the other 1/3 of the country, and the 1/3 in the middle is too disinvolved to matter.

              So it's just a question of how it all falls apart. All the foreigners who have ZERO interest in any of the ideals the country were founded on, combined with the small minority of white progressives, simply cannot be lived with.

              Soooo do we have a bloody civil war where millions of people die and one side or the other forces the other to accept defeat? IMO there's no way the left wins if it comes to this. OR Will we just peacefully split up the country. That's what I prefer.

              Demographics means leftists WILL take total power politically over the next decade or 2, and I don't think the real Americans will tolerate their shit. So fingers crossed we have a peaceful separation instead of a violent divorce.

    8. had to LAUGH OUT LOUD at the suggestion that there would be violence from the fey lefties. the fight would be SHORT and VERY one sided when they try to get chesty and pick a fight with the folks that quietly supported trump. good lord the video will be good

  18. So you write a whole article on why Dem candidates should have shied away from the SJW political correctness preaching that they were doing and then go write a statement like this: "perceived political correctness of the country's political, journalistic, and cultural elites."

    So, your position is for the political elites to stop being so politically correct while at the same time calling the Republican aversion to this political correctness "perceived." Can't straddle that Reason Libertarian fence much more than that. LOL!

    1. This article is kind of an even dumber and less direct version of the "Republicans Pounce" talking point.

    2. You can recognize a Welch article by its inherent dishonesty.

  19. The Woke Primary Is Over and Everyone Lost...The progressive bloc in the 2020 Democratic field has persistently lagged the centrists by about 10 percentage points.

    There are plenty of polls of younger voters re what they want in a politician. And 'woke' has not described that - ever. Since at least 2008, they have wanted:
    a) some sense of integrity/honesty from a candidate who
    b)promises serious structural change

    For the 18-29's at least, the 'progressives' do not remotely trail the centrists or status quo of either party. Sanders and Warren combined get about 50%. Biden and Trump (both proxy for status quo) combined get about 40%. And everyone else gets about 10%.

    Maybe the useless meaningless symbolism of 'woke' characterizes stuff on college campuses. I'd argue that it is precisely because college campus disputes are meaningless, that meaningless symbolic gestures and virtue signaling and somesuch characterize them. But the second someone from outside that group characterizes the generation itself (rather than the dispute) as 'woke', then one is essentially giving up whatever integrity/honesty you yourself had in favor of some fashionable hipster cynicism. And implicitly pretending that what that generation wants is not actual structural change but merely the appearance of change.

    Maybe THAT is why the 2008 campaign of Ron Paul - which sparked a very real 'libertarian' notion in young voters - led nowhere over time. It was never going to lead back into the R tent. Even if R's proved they too want 'serious structural change', the change they wanted was always that of middle-aged or older who wanted a return to some mythical past of that group's youth. Not the change actual younger voters want.

    And if either big or small l libertarian led to either the sort of fashionable cynicism (but heavily status quo orientation) of the Reason crowd or the organizational cluster$%^# of the LP - well it's no wonder that only the left remains standing in the vacuum of 'what are my political alternatives' to that generation.

    Yet another wasted opportunity libertarians create for themselves. I'd say the Greens also created their own wasted opportunity - but they have always in the US been more watermelon anyway, so they lost when Sanders created a 'home' in the D's.

  20. "This debate is so white, it's not allowed to bring the potato salad,"

    I don’t get it. Is this something people of color say about white people?

    Wouldn’t it be funny if I said “ is so black, it’s not allowed near the fried chicken. ”? No? It wouldn’t? Huh... Weird how that works.

    1. I don't get it either. It strikes me as something woke white people imagine actual racial humor would sound like. It is not funny and sounds like no joke any black person I have ever met would make.

      1. I heard black people make jokes about mayonnaise being a preference of white people before, for some reason(?), so maybe it’s connected to that? I also didn’t get it, but I’m not one to begrudge anyone his racial stereotype humor.

        1. Yeah, but if they have to explain it, it's not humor.

        2. OK, here's the final answer from someone who actually did the research:

          Mayo is not white

          1. That article is fascinating... Among other things it claims Miracle Whip is the same thing as Mayonnaise, which I suppose is true if you don't have tastebuds.

        3. Oh yeah, the mayo thing is totally a thing! And I LOVE me some mayo too!

  21. The woke primary may be over, but the woke election has only just begun! It's never too late to vote against President Trump since he's so . . . um . . . unwoke!

    Ever notice that the Democrats have little to say against Trump's policies other than that they're Trump's policies? This won't be a woke election. It'll be the ad-hominem election for about one-third of the country--with the rest of us doing our best to ignore the one-third.

    You need an additional 20% of the voters to get scared about the economy before social justice people get any traction against Trump, which means the economy will need to take a turn for the worse that neither Wall Street nor the yield curve sees coming right now.

    President Trump can claim victories in every area that matters. Even if you don't like what he did on trade, the Chinese signing on the dotted line tomorrow gives him the ability to claim he did something for the swing state, rust belt. Wages for unskilled workers are still rising faster than they are for their managers. Trump can claim victory on curbing the asylum crisis. Illegal immigration is way down.

    I certainly don't see Trump losing to Biden or Sanders. I don't see Trump losing to anyone who signed off on the Green New Deal or Medicare for All. For the Democrats to win, they need to win back the white, blue collar, middle class of the swing state rust belt, and they simply can't do that and be the party of social justice warriors, too. Meanwhile, Trump has actually done all the things the Democrats have been promising since the days of Bill Clinton?

    1. “Ever notice that the Democrats have little to say against Trump’s policies other than that they’re Trump’s policies?“

      Well they say their racist and mysoginist, so there’s that. Mind you, they never sufficiently elaborate when pressed, so you just have to take their word for it. But trust me, his policies are totally racist!

      1. s/their/they’re

    2. "Meanwhile, Trump has actually done all the things the Democrats have been promising since the days of Bill Clinton?"

      Because Trump is really just an old school moderate Democrat! I would obviously prefer more of a Ron Paul sort myself, but it's amazing/terrifying that a 90s style moderate Democrat seems like a relatively good choice in 2020!

    3. "Ever notice that the Democrats have little to say against Trump’s policies"

      Yeah, but could that be because he's also anti-market.

  22. Maybe the Democrats should trot out a parade of women to accuse Trump of sexual assault, write up his rallies like they're Nuremberg, accuse him of collaborating with the Russians, and smear him by claiming that he pays women to pee on him?

    Oh yeah, they already tried that.

    Well, maybe they should accuse him of a being a misogynist, a racist, a xenophobe, transphobic, and an Islamophobe!

    They already tried that, too?


    Well, maybe they should try advocating the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free college (at the voters' expense), and confiscating 400 million guns from 100 million law abiding voters?

    They already tried that, too, and nobody who votes and isn't already a progressive wants any of that?

    Well, they could try advocating policies that average Americans in Peoria actually like, but that's kind of a crazy plan.

    1. Hey man, people in Peoria love having their taxes raised to pay for refugees moving into their area to raise the crime rates and diversify the area! And they're super stoked to have their guns confiscated. And they love illegal immigration depressing their wages.

      The Dems don't need to do a THING to get their votes, because all their policies are already tailored for just what they want!

  23. I think there's another way to look at this. "Vote for me I'm black/female" didn't have much success this time around. But "vote for me and I'll take from those you hate and share it with you" sure did.

    1. Well, they already got a black candidate that won! This time should have been all about women and The Gays... But the prospects of loot won out in the end, as it always does.

  24. "Maybe now would be a good time for Democrats to recognize that identity-politics signaling doesn't translate into votes."

    Yeah, Dems strategy sucks. Or maybe not: "Democrats won the popular vote by more than 9.7 million votes or 8.6%, the largest midterm margin for any party and the largest margin on record for a minority party. According the Associated Press' statistical analysis, gerrymandering cost the Democrats an additional sixteen House seats from Republicans."

    The Republicans "identity politics" (why do only Democrats get accused of that, when it was the party of the Southern Strategy and the Culture Wars that created this mess?) are engaged in demographic death.

    1. Winning the national popular vote doesn't get the Democrats a damned thing. The won that vote in the midterms and ended up losing seats in the Senate and picking up a below average number of House seats for a party completely out of power.

      Running up votes in a few dark blue areas doesn't do them any good. The Democrats do play identity politics. Their entire appeal boils down to voting Democrat as a brand to either show your racial loyalty or if you are white to show how much you hate and consider yourself superior to rural or working class whites. The Democrats have spent the entire 21st Century making a fetish out of hating white people. And now you complain that white people are voting by their identity. What the fuck did retards like you think was going to happen? Just because you use self loathing as a means of self actualization doesn't mean anyone else will find it appealing.

      1. Do not be concerned, clinger. When your betters take control you will play a part in the new order.

        1. Look how your betters fared against Oberlin College.

          1. Check the name; that's a parody account. The Rev Asshole Bigot has now spawned several of them of varying talents.

            1. Yep.
              Kirkland has been replaced by someone better

              1. Not a very high bar.

    2. If only mob-rule were how US presidents were elected.... it's like complaining that the Vikings really won because they had more completed passes.

      1. Hey, they should count the hag's 'worst piece of shit' votes in her sorority.

  25. "This field is so bad because they're all white"

    I don't know, but this sounds like prejudice to me, as is the notion that minorities must be represented by politicians from their own race. Isn't North Korea ruled by North Koreans?

    I swear, the libs are some of the most obtuse people on the face of the earth. Why don't these people ask "Hmmm, I wonder why the coalition of minorities didn't propel Booker, Tusli and Andrew Yang into front runner status"

  26. This is a reversal of the Dems' performance in 1928, when Dixiecrats had saddled them with the Klan, whose preoccupation was preserving Comstockism to prevent race suicide--and keeping alcohol illegal. The Republicans also wanted beer illegal, but had no interest in banning electricity. The Liberal Party only got organized 2 years later.... after The Crash.

    1. "The Liberal Party"

      There was no liberal party, FDR just rebranded progressive because the label became less popular.
      Prior to that, fully two thirds of the country was progressive and were the majority in both parties

  27. Signaling to half-educated bigots, disaffected clingers, superstitious slack-jaws, and anti-social culture war casualties won as recently as three years ago, so . . . other than that, great article!

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
      January.14.2020 at 8:05 pm
      "Signaling to half-educated bigots, disaffected clingers, superstitious slack-jaws, and anti-social culture war casualties won as recently as three years ago, so..."

      Yep, you fill the bill, asshole bigot.
      Tell us how your most recent 'better', that guy Maduro, is making things better for his proles.

    2. Yeah, the Democrats are pandering to the woketarian clingers like those who caused Oberlin College to lose a multi million dollar lawsuit.

      Trump was elected in part due to the excesses of the woketarian clingers in media and academia.

    3. Kirkland, I told you last week - you've been replaced.
      Pack up your shit and get the fuck out of here before we have to call security

  28. Zeb,
    If we keep the metaphor, Bernie's either Marx or Lenin: inspirational leader or figurehead, who arouses the passions of the crowd, but is gradually superseded by a sociopathic schemer. I think of him as a Marx, with an extant following. I think he lacks the skills of Lenin.

    Really, his highest purpose is to try and be a beatific figure for Socialism, ideally resulting in his death. Martyrs can't later disappoint the flock.

  29. At the risk of being redundant (I have not read all of the currently 216 or more comments) I submit that "of color" is a transparent effort by the woke quasi-racists to create a meaningful category out of practically nothing. My experience in bigotry is pretty limited, but from what I have seen real bigots carefully distinguish their targets: they never, for instance, would confuse an African-American with a Native American or Asian (or South Asian). The more discerning among them would distinguish Japanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese, reserving to each a unique set of characteristics and defects. Most of the rest of us would not notice Tulsi Gabbard for anything but her opinions, except for the woken who remind us, often, that she is "of color". Many, indeed, would scarcely notice, and only in passing, that Kamala Harris is "of color" but for her nagging reminders of it.

    Maybe, really, it is time to dump "of color," and the accompanying idiocy that all of "them" should think the same, into the garbage bucket where it belongs, along with the notion that a Catholic will be the agent of Popery, a Jew is the agent of Israel, and any candidate who suggests rapproachment with Russia is a Putin Puppet,

    1. "At the risk of being redundant (I have not read all of the currently 216 or more comments) I submit that “of color” is a transparent effort by the woke quasi-racists to create a meaningful category out of practically nothing."

      I'll disagree to this extent:
      It is an attempt to create a classification on the discredited notion of 'race'; that someone whose skin is of a darker or lighter color, or whose eyes are shaped differently, or who speaks a different native language somehow has desires and interests at odds to the racist making the claim.
      And, yes, the asshole making that claim is a racist. Individually someone of those descriptions might well, but the claim of universality is, simply, racist.

      1. Yes. Had I thought a bit more I might have put it differently, but the intent was to observe that the "progressives" are trying to create a meaningful category of generic "race" from a hodgepodge of wildly different groups that they identify largely by complexion. That, and that without proper, and frequent, reminders, many of the rest of us would rather approach people based on other and more meaningful things.

      2. Well, what they're really doing is:

        Trying to create a block that is EVERYBODY except white people... To try to organize everybody against white people. Hence the phrase that includes everybody in the world who isn't white!

        AND, don't be obtuse. The fact is ethnic groups DO act as a block. The idea that everybody would just become atomized individuals in the post racial utopia is bullshit.

        Why is it bullshit? First off, different ethnic groups DO have different interests than others. As per statistics, white people would immediately benefit dramatically from a reduction in taxes, welfare, and big government in general. The black community would be FUCKED without all the free money taken from white people. In the long run blacks would be better off of course, but they don't realize this, and perceive themselves as being hurt. Hence for an ignorant black person, it is logical to vote against white interests, and for a white person it is logical to vote against black interests.

        Likewise, Hispanics see it as a virtue to have more people "like them" move into the country... Hence tend to be far more pro illegal immigration/amnesty/etc. They also support redistributionist policies, because they too are on the receiving end.

        This is what multi-racial/multi-ethnic democracy will ALWAYS devolve into, because we're all hard wired to prefer people like ourselves. Even babies prefer people of the same ethnicity. And with different cultural things, circumstances, etc, concrete interests often diverge on top of that hard wiring.

        Obviously not everybody falls in line with their racial group. And some groups even act against their own interests for unknown reasons... Namely Jews and Asians who ALSO would benefit from small government due to their high incomes and other things that put them in the same boat as whites... Of course, it is possible Asians and Jews perceive it to be their interests to weaken whites in general, and that holds more value to them than the other things.

        See, most people don't think this stuff too consciously, but this is the shit going on in the back of peoples brains subconsciously. Like it or not it will never change.

        Which is why IMO every nation-state is best off having a single ethno-cultural group with a massive supermajority, such that nobody even thinks they can question what it wants. If you don't you get this endless ethnic infighting like we have now. Back in the day when America was 85-90% white, we just sat down with the blacks and hashed something out we both found acceptable. That's impossible to do with so many different groups at the table now.

        The USA needs to split up, and then people moving can self sort to create more sustainable nations.

        1. Am I the only one beginning to suspect vek is a parody account?

          1. Why? Because I am willing to speak the truth on subjects that make people uncomfortable? I'll have you know that I used to be a believer in the idea that at some point we could all get past "groups" in politics, and personal life, including ethnic group solidarity and all that entails.

            The data, and the way things have continued to play out, and learning more about history, have all corrected that wrong opinion. I WISH this stuff wasn't true... But it is. Name a country that had multiple large ethnic groups that didn't have instability and massive ethnic infighting? Name a long lived multi-ethnic state that wasn't held together by force from the top down, which is exactly what most historical great empires did. What is the default when countries/empires break apart (breaking up along ethno-cultural lines, duh!)?

            The fact that you, and almost all white Americans are in denial doesn't change the facts.

            The Democrats KNOW and ACCEPT this fact, and have weaponized it politically against conservatives and libertarians, who tend to be overwhelmingly white. Like it or not, this is what is going on, and will continue until one group has total control so strong it cannot be challenged, OR everybody melts into a single racial group... Brazil and the rest of south America are going on 500 years of melting pot, and they still have massive racial issues. So I ain't holding my breath for that to happen.

            I believe it was Ayn Rand that said something along the lines of "You can choose to ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of reality."

  30. Democrats have created so many identity groups they now have them all competing for which one is the most downtrodden and in need of public largesse. They can't figure out how to keep them all happy.

  31. Honestly, out of all the horrible stuff the leftists have done in my lifetime, the PC/woke shit probably pisses me off the most in my daily life.

    I resent being told that my best friend couldn't have the nickname "Beaner," (because he was of course 100% Mexican) which even his own mother called him in the 90s! That my entire friend group couldn't refer to a specific friend as "The Jew" 90% of the time instead of using his real name. And that I can't be allowed to have the nicknames "Buffalo Fucking Nazi" or "Beanerschnitzel," since I am mostly German, but also part Native American and Mexican.

    That shit is bullshit, and they can go fuck themselves. Ribbing people is a sign of comradery, and also makes people tough, instead of them being sissy ass snowflakes. Fuck these woke ass bitches!

  32. "briar patch"

    Ha ha! You're old.

    1. "Ha ha! You’re old."

      Those who refuse to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.

  33. Democraps have crapped their bed once again, as with Mondale 1984, Dukakis 1988, and Kerry 2004. They will nominate an inept and unlikeable turd and get their butts whooped. Brown people might vote for democrats, but it’s the old white geezer who still hold the power.

    1. And the Libertarian party will once again vote for someone you've never heard of, who wears a tinfoil hat, and who drinks his own urine for his health.

      1. You know who used to drink his own urine for his health?

  34. Andre Marrou?

  35. "Brooklyn Twitter"


  36. "Forget the general election; none of this worked in the Democratic primary."

    Oh, I'm sure that you're going to see a complete "about face" from whomever is picked once the general starts.

  37. So, it boils down to the fact that the Democrats are still incapable of fielding a strong candidate? Looks like Trump will be a shoe-in for a 2nd term. And I'm still not sure if that's good or bad.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.