Posted On: Tuesday - November 12th 2024 10:06PM MST
In Topics: Elections '16 - '24 Feminism Trump US Feral Government ctrl-left Deep State Female Stupidity Karmakarma Kameleon
... and we didn't even get our ears nicked. I've taken so many white pills lately, my Trumpologist will no longer renew my prescription - he's worried about possible side effects from such large doses - the donations, rally-going, Puerto Rican jokes...
For this post though, I had my stomach pumped first so I could be objective. Analysis of "what happened" in the '24 election can consist of exit poll demographic numbers with arithmetic and discussion of strategy, such as the interesting post E.H. Hail has just come out with: Revisiting the “Sailer Strategy” after the Trump-2024 victory: Whites cast 80%+ of Trump’s votes, but some call the Sailer Strategy obsolete–Why?. Here, I just want to speculate on how America got lucky this time - not to say we'll need luck every time, but it depends on what President Trump and his people get done.
Mr. Hail has written this numerous times: Worst Candidate Ever! I don't doubt that. I could look through America's political history at all the losing candidates over the 2 3/8 centuries (it's not that the winners are necessarily better, but we already know a lot more about them). There may well have been some crooks and scoundrels, and there've definitely been traitors and Commies (who've won!) but, apart from the recent The Hildabeast and Øb☭ma, they've been all White men. I cannot imagine any of them having the utter pure vapidity and worthlessness of Kameloe, as a major candidate for President. (MINOR candidates - different story, though one wonders if most of them have had a lot more going for them than the usual 2 selected UniParty candidates.)
How did the Blue-Squad get this loser? WHY did they pick this loser? My speculation that they wanted Trump to get this due to the financial doom coming* gives them too much credit for smarts. They are neither smart nor patient. The Deep State behind Government doesn't feel comfortable with Trump in office, as they would with any other D (and about every R too). There was something I've read about regarding the use of Bai Dien campaign money only for the campaign to the VP. I don't think these people have a problem raising money - a $Billion is quite a lot - from the Hollywood and other entertainment dupes.
Was it some worry that they'd better stick with the Black! woman or else? (Yeah, I know, black? You can fool most of the sisters most of the time.) Were they under a threat by one of the black big-wigs such as the Cyburnes or Sharptons? They could have run a quick primary and gotten someone like Gavin Newscome**. He's just as left and stupid as Kameltoe, but he doesn't come across as such and could hide the policy ideas for a few months more adeptly.
I think the Blue Squad members who worked out this coup were just lazy. They reckoned they could pull a My Fair Lady on this common slut, errr flower girl to get her interview-ready. Their version of Henry Higgens: "OK, let's try it one more time. Ask me where the rain is fixing to fall in Spain." "Axe me where the rain is fin ta ..." "By George, she ain't got it!" It'd have taken decades, not months.
There's one more aspect of the Kamaltoe campaign strategy that's not about the candidate herself. We should remember that there is no waiver of stupidity and the new trend toward incompetence for campaign strategists. They must have been under the impression for the last 2 1/2 years since Dobbs v. Jackson that this abortion issues was a winning card. They could rile up all those single White women who may want to kill their babies at any time.*** (The black women were already in the bag, of course.) My brother in another State who does watch TV on occasion told me about all the ads directed at said women voters.
Now, if those ads were for State candidates, I understand, but in this national election, abortion was simply not an issue! That SCROTUS decision did nothing but push the power to make laws about abortion back to the States, where it belonged. The Roe v Wade decision was clearly NOT in accordance with the US Constitution, but just a political act.
Donald Trump is not particularly keen on banning abortion, and he clearly and rightly has noted it's not the Feral Gov't's call. He stepped completely out of the (non)issue. We know Feminist Kameltoe was not going to be able to reverse any SCROTUS ruling herself. Were they thinking about the judges? There's a long timeline there, so in this '24 election, well, abortion was not one of the issues. (The genderbender tranny nonsense WAS, and Trump did a good job pointing out this stupidity.) I suppose the D's counting on ignorance and stupidity of these single White women voters, but that didn't work.
We got lucky. They screwed up in picking the Worst Candidate Ever. We've, at least temporarily, recaptured the Executive Branch of US Gov't, of all the many American Institutions that the ctlr-left has infiltrated over the last half century. This move will give us 4 more years to fumigate the Judicial Branch to some degree, and, if the MAGA Party gets going, maybe even a serious portion of the Legislative Branch. The 4th branch, the Lyin' Press, is beyond help, but might die a slow death on its own.
Then, there are the Universities, the school systems, Big Biz, the military even... Can this one election gain us inroads back into the other Institutions? There are lots of plans being discussed. It's pretty exciting.
Last Tuesday, I called this election The Most Important one, for real, at least in the immediate sense. 4 more years of the control by the left, with a continued or even ramped-up invasion, more economic destruction, and cultural (woke) destruction too, would have been meant the ruin of this place. We've got a reprieve, if nothing else. I am not sure the ruin inflicted so far is reversible, but I can see some light, which I'll discuss in another post.
As a country, we dodged a bullet last week. There'll be more. As we hold out hope that President Trump has meant much of what he's said this time - the appointments look hopeful for the most part - we can also enjoy the emotional pain of the ctrl-left. The videos are fun, maybe a little over-dramatic, but I try to suspend my disbelief and enjoy them. Some of those who've feared for this coming period of Fascism with Trumpian Characteristics have said that they will leave the country as asylum seekers. No, we're not sending our best, and I wonder if it's not another type of asylum they should all be seeking.
I read that whole Steve Sailer thread on the election. Mr. Anon has given us a fun meme that covers the proposed Exodus:
PS: Thanks Mr. Anon.
* Even on this most important realm of stupidity, I've been a little bit more hopeful this past week. Again, we'll get to this.
** If President Trump can call him this, as he did 2 or 3 times on Joe Rogan, Peak Stupidity can too.
*** Yeah, there's a lot more to it, but that's not coming in this post.
***************************
[UPDATED 11/13:] Added anti-abortion campaign stupidity.
***************************
Comments:
Moderator
Thursday - November 14th 2024 9:01AM MST
PS: I'm with Alarmist in that I think it is some of both, Mr. Hail. However, then I think of if a Newscome or the like had won this. The slide toward demographic destruction and Commie economics would have continued unabated.
About the only difference is that Kameltoes great annoyances would have been avoided with another, not-quite-the-worst candidate. For me, it's not so much a problem. I don't kid when I say that during those 8 years when Øb☭ma was President, I probably only listened to 10 minutes max TOTAL of his words.
I could see my doing the same - being off the grid would make it even easier, which would be something I'd have worked for even faster had she been elected.
About the only difference is that Kameltoes great annoyances would have been avoided with another, not-quite-the-worst candidate. For me, it's not so much a problem. I don't kid when I say that during those 8 years when Øb☭ma was President, I probably only listened to 10 minutes max TOTAL of his words.
I could see my doing the same - being off the grid would make it even easier, which would be something I'd have worked for even faster had she been elected.
Moderator
Thursday - November 14th 2024 8:56AM MST
PS: Thanks for the stevesailer.net thread link, Mr. Hail. Yeah, I was being kind, I think, to Guess007. (I believe he's still a hard-core Panicker too, IIRC.)
At first I'd thought that you'd pasted in Lionel Shriver's WRITING rather than SPEECH (in an interview). She really doesn't come across very knowledgeable at all. Her emotional take on Kameltoe is pratty good. It's too be expected that I woman would make a decision based on emotion over a broad understanding of the whole situation (ex, the long-running immigration invasion) - we shouldn't let the name Lionel fool us. (She's no trannie, for those who don't know this author.)
"I would like to see the Democrats do a little more soul-searching. So far they're not soul-searching. "
Soul-searching assumes they HAVE souls. Some of these people are evil. They don't want to search their souls, even had they souls. They want to see how to get done what they want done, right or wrong notwithstanding. They screwed up this time is all...
For her age, Lionel Shriver sounds pretty dang naive. That's what I've gotten out of this and her novels, when she has political statements in the latter. However, "The Mandibles" showed some excellent foresight and understanding of money, finance, the economy, etc. I highly recommend that one to anybody.
Oh, and thanks for that excerpt and for linking to my blog, Mr. Hail.
At first I'd thought that you'd pasted in Lionel Shriver's WRITING rather than SPEECH (in an interview). She really doesn't come across very knowledgeable at all. Her emotional take on Kameltoe is pratty good. It's too be expected that I woman would make a decision based on emotion over a broad understanding of the whole situation (ex, the long-running immigration invasion) - we shouldn't let the name Lionel fool us. (She's no trannie, for those who don't know this author.)
"I would like to see the Democrats do a little more soul-searching. So far they're not soul-searching. "
Soul-searching assumes they HAVE souls. Some of these people are evil. They don't want to search their souls, even had they souls. They want to see how to get done what they want done, right or wrong notwithstanding. They screwed up this time is all...
For her age, Lionel Shriver sounds pretty dang naive. That's what I've gotten out of this and her novels, when she has political statements in the latter. However, "The Mandibles" showed some excellent foresight and understanding of money, finance, the economy, etc. I highly recommend that one to anybody.
Oh, and thanks for that excerpt and for linking to my blog, Mr. Hail.
The Alarmist
Thursday - November 14th 2024 8:42AM MST
PS
My answer to Mr. Hail’s question: Both. Happy that Kameltoe lost, and happy that a Trump, rather than someone like a McCain or Romney, won and has learned to make a few decidedly non-RINO picks. Let’s see if any of them get through a RINO-Thune-led Senate.
He could probably get a few million illegals to self-deport by turning off the EBT cards and offering a plane ticket to their home countries. Anyone who thinks mass-deportation is unworkable isn’t thinking creatively.
My answer to Mr. Hail’s question: Both. Happy that Kameltoe lost, and happy that a Trump, rather than someone like a McCain or Romney, won and has learned to make a few decidedly non-RINO picks. Let’s see if any of them get through a RINO-Thune-led Senate.
He could probably get a few million illegals to self-deport by turning off the EBT cards and offering a plane ticket to their home countries. Anyone who thinks mass-deportation is unworkable isn’t thinking creatively.
Hail
Wednesday - November 13th 2024 8:08PM MST
PS
-- What would a Kamala victory have meant? --
Boulevardier writes, today, similarly to Lionel Shriver's anti-Kamal excoriation of last week:
"It would have been a huge blackpill if the Dems had been able to engineer a win with a sock puppet like Kamala in the span of a few months. That's not to say there are not still many levers they can use to manufacture support, but Kamala was so inorganic a candidate that if she had won it really would have signaled any semblance of democracy had been snuffed out and the left was in permanent control."
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/so-what-happened/comment/77029206
_________
COMMENT: Are the good feelings at the result more about "Trump won" or more about "Kamala lost"? It's hard to disentangle the two. It's hard to say.
-- What would a Kamala victory have meant? --
Boulevardier writes, today, similarly to Lionel Shriver's anti-Kamal excoriation of last week:
"It would have been a huge blackpill if the Dems had been able to engineer a win with a sock puppet like Kamala in the span of a few months. That's not to say there are not still many levers they can use to manufacture support, but Kamala was so inorganic a candidate that if she had won it really would have signaled any semblance of democracy had been snuffed out and the left was in permanent control."
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/so-what-happened/comment/77029206
_________
COMMENT: Are the good feelings at the result more about "Trump won" or more about "Kamala lost"? It's hard to disentangle the two. It's hard to say.
Hail
Wednesday - November 13th 2024 8:00PM MST
PS
RE: Dewey Defeats Kamala
R.G. Camara and longtime Sailer loyalist DanFromDC reply critically to Guest007's flippant comparison of Th. Dewey (1902-1971), esq., to Kamala The Kackler (died, politically, in predawn hours, EST, Nov. 6, 2024):
.
____________
R. G. Camara
Only an insane idiot could make such a laughably bad comparison oh wait its communist troll guest007 ok I should have guessed. Carry on, Soros bot!
____________
.
__________
DanFromDC
(to Guest007) Huh? Dewey put away scumbag Lucky Luciano and was great governor of NY. A serious and competent man.
___________
.
___________
R.G. Camara
Yeah, and let's not forget his very successful term as NY Governor and being the "Dewey" in the successful lawfirm Dewey Ballantine.
Comparing Harris to Dewey is comparing a Special Olympics ice dancer to Michelle Kwan.
___________
.
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/so-what-happened/comment/76947700
RE: Dewey Defeats Kamala
R.G. Camara and longtime Sailer loyalist DanFromDC reply critically to Guest007's flippant comparison of Th. Dewey (1902-1971), esq., to Kamala The Kackler (died, politically, in predawn hours, EST, Nov. 6, 2024):
.
____________
R. G. Camara
Only an insane idiot could make such a laughably bad comparison oh wait its communist troll guest007 ok I should have guessed. Carry on, Soros bot!
____________
.
__________
DanFromDC
(to Guest007) Huh? Dewey put away scumbag Lucky Luciano and was great governor of NY. A serious and competent man.
___________
.
___________
R.G. Camara
Yeah, and let's not forget his very successful term as NY Governor and being the "Dewey" in the successful lawfirm Dewey Ballantine.
Comparing Harris to Dewey is comparing a Special Olympics ice dancer to Michelle Kwan.
___________
.
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/so-what-happened/comment/76947700
Hail
Wednesday - November 13th 2024 10:41AM MST
PS
-- Lionel Shriver on what "Kamala" means --
About 24 hours after the results came in, Lionel Shriver was interviewed and asked her views on Kamala. She had among the harshest words about Kamala that I've seen from a mainstream-like figure, even Kamala-kritics.
Mrs Shriver says Kamala is the ultimate D.E.I. candidate. She engaged in, and symbolizes/represents, "fake, empty, insulting politics," a contempt for the people and affront to human dignity. The process that thrust Kamala on the USA is "twisted" and "demented."
If such a bad candidate had squeaked in, it would have been the crowning of D.E.I. ideology. And so Lionel Shriver revealed, up front, that she was "emotionally" pro-Trump in 2024, despite being a longstanding Trump critic.
.
The following is a partial transcript, from "Americano," The Spectator (UK):
_________________
.
LIONEL SHRIVER: 'Emotionally,' I wanted Donald Trump to win. But 'intellectually,' I thought that Harris was probably safer for the country. It would've been a dumpy and annoying administration. It would pass all kinds of things that I didn't want them to. But it wouldn't be that unpredictable. It wouldn't go off the rails. (Kamala) was, ironically, the "conservative option."
But when I learned that Trump had won, I felt quietly happy! With a little undercurrent of anxiety.
I think that the Democrats' characterization of Trump as planning to imprison his opponents and to sic the military on anyone who doesn't agree with him: that was twisting what he has said. You don't need to twist what Donald Trump says. It's extravagant enough already, without taking the next step. And they consistently did that, with everything he said.
I'm not worried that he's going to throw his opponents in jail, in the same way that his opponents tried to throw him in jail. I've always thought that that was an ironic accusation. It's a "kettle, black" situation.
There are a couple things he may do, soon, that I don't mind. If he gets control of the Southern border, and finishes the border wall -- which I figure can't do any harm -- and ideally puts together some legislation that makes enforcement more powerful, I'm all for it. And so is most of the United States. He also doesn't want men com competing in women's sports. I think that's great, too. He leaned in heavily on that issue in his advertising, towards the end of the campaign, so that may be top of mind for now...
This is a summary rejection of progressive identity politics. I am really hoping that this decisive result puts an end to the momentum behind progressive politics and "D.E.I." racially obsessed ideology.
I'm also hopeful that because this race has been followed so avidly, internationally, that it also sends a signal to especially the Anglophone countries that this whole "identity politics" thing is yesterday's news, that it is over. It is not popular. It has been led by a very narrow band of people who have got control of a lot of big institutions, not just in the United States but also in the likes of Britain. It has been rejected. That includes racial preferences in hiring and admission to educational institutions. I would love to see the whole "ball of wax" thrown out. That, to me, is the most cheerful aspect of this election.
The other thing is: It's also a rejection of the fake, empty, insulting politics represented by Kamala Harris! Not just her campaign, but for her but her candidacy. I found that her being run as a credible "president of the United States" insulted the electorate. I completely accept that there are lots and lots of people who also look at Donald Trump that way. Okay. I understand that. And I kind of do too. But he is MORE CREDIBLE than she is. She is a 'nothing'!
The only issue she spoke with ANY persuasive passion about was abortion. I truly believe that she does want abortion to be legal up until fetal viability. I believe this is a real thing that she believes. I'm not persuaded that she believes ANY-thing else. Other than, "It would be fun to be president."
KATE ANDREWS: I take a slightly different view. I also was deeply frustrated by how Kamala decided to campaign. It was a very clear election tactic. that they simply weren't going to say anything detailed about public policy, in the run-up ---
LIONEL SHRIVER: -- say "anything"! Just say "anything"!
KATE ANDREWS: Sometimes the rambling resulted in truly nothing being said/ But I think my frustration came from the fact that I think she DOES believe in quite a lot of things, and I think she was nervous to say so because of how those messages really would have landed in states like Pennsylvania. She really underperformed in Pennsylvania.
There's a remarkable clip from CNN going viral right now as they were breaking down the data on election night. It's asked that the counties were Harris outperformed Biden be brought up on the map, and the map goes blank. Because there isn't a county in Pennsylvania -- not one -- where Harris performed better than Biden. ...Had she actually started talking about the views that she held on fracking back in 2019, those results might have been a lot worse (for her), given that she said consistently that she wanted to ban it.
If you go back to her record in California, when she was attorney general, and look at her record on criminal justice; then if you go to her record in D.C., as a senator, a fairly left-wing more authoritarian candidate emerges. You get this combination of quite left-wing economic agenda combined with pretty hawkish rhetoric on foreign policy combined with an attitude towards criminal justice that both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have been rejecting for years now.
It struck me that she probably DOES have a lot of views and probably IS able to articulate them quite well, when she wants to. But maybe she knew deep down that (her views) are the exact opposite to where the American people are right now. Maybe this was the best tactic to perform as well as she could have, and we're seeing the result of it.
LIONEL SHRIVER: Even on abortion, she has a very narrow vocabulary. She just repeats the same phrases over, and over, and over again. "Women having control of their own bodies," etc., etc. I've NEVER heard her articulate a position, on any other issue (than abortion), in a very coherent or impressive way that has content. I think you're giving her the benefit of the doubt.
I think that she is an opportunist. You can see, when you ask her a question, that what is actually going through her head is: "What am I supposed to say? What is it 'advantageous' for me to say? What trap do I need to avoid? Rather than simply saying what she thinks. It's because what she IS thinking is all "process," it's all politics. It's not the real decisions that you have to make in government, the real positions you need to take. Something that is under-observed is: that kind of empty emptiness, that flimsiness, that refusal to be pinned down, all of it, the whole package, it comes across as WEAK. It's weak.
You'll have had any number of voters tell pollsters that they voted on the basis of the economy. It sounds like a reasonable decision. This is the way American voters are supposed to think about their pocketbook. But I think it's more likely than not that an awful lot of people who say that, were really persuaded by a more amorphous package of qualities in each of these candidates. In Trump, however weird he is, it makes people feel that he's, at least, a powerful and strong figure. Whereas with Harris, you're looking at somebody who is "flimsy," who is kind of "hardly there," who is a "placeholder" for people you don't even know.
She doesn't seem like a president. I don't think this has anything to do with race. I don't even think it has to do with sex. She isn't impressive. She doesn't present of a feeling of a "whole, strong person," who is complete in her core.
She seems like somebody who could easily be controlled. She seems like somebody who doesn't know what she's doing, who doesn't know what she's saying, and doesn't -- in her deepest self -- completely believe that she DESERVES to be in the position that she is in.
I don't think she should have come so far, in her career, as to be "running for president of the United States." And her candidacy was freakish.
One of the reasons that I am very pleased to see her rejected is the way she became a credible candidate for the presidency -- which she should never have been -- she was because she was made vice president on the basis of race and sex. She IS a "D.E.I." candidate. That's what she would have represented, that way of thinking, had she become president. But it was only because Biden said he wanted to appoint a woman, and he was obviously committed, later, to (appointing) a Black woman. This is NOT the way we should choose out leaders! It's twisted. It's demented. It's self-destructive. Those are not qualities, such as intelligence, wisdom, experience, education, contacts, good instincts.
The things you need in a leader have nothing to do with race or sex. Therefore, had she won, it would have been the dominance of this "D.E.I." ideology. It would've been the ultimate (case of D.E.I.). It would NOT have been "breaking the glass ceiling for women." It would have been the triumph of "progressive identity politics."
...
KATE ANDREWS: ...A lot of people are very quickly jumping (to say that)...the election went wrong for Harris because America could not vote for a Black woman. That seems to be the narrative.
So, HAVE we really overcome the identity politics narrative? I could be that the Democratic Party doubles down on that narrative, especially if they're feeling lost.
LIONEL SHRIVER: Of course the Democrats want to paint it that way. I don't find that persuasive at all. It's predictable because they see everything through their lens of race and sex. That's the only way they know how to look at this result.
I would like to see the Democrats do a little more soul-searching. So far they're not soul-searching. They're just name-calling. ...They haven't learned anything. It's more it's more "fascism," it's more authoritarianism, it's the start of very dark days in the United States, it's very gloomy and threatening. There's no sense that they are taking responsibility, at all, for having offered something that the country does not want.
...
Contempt is bad politics. You can't "lecture people into being on your side." It's off-putting. The Obamas made the same mistake, going out and finger-pointing, accusing Black men of of being sexist. This "hectoring" thing, it doesn't work.
_______________
-- Lionel Shriver on what "Kamala" means --
About 24 hours after the results came in, Lionel Shriver was interviewed and asked her views on Kamala. She had among the harshest words about Kamala that I've seen from a mainstream-like figure, even Kamala-kritics.
Mrs Shriver says Kamala is the ultimate D.E.I. candidate. She engaged in, and symbolizes/represents, "fake, empty, insulting politics," a contempt for the people and affront to human dignity. The process that thrust Kamala on the USA is "twisted" and "demented."
If such a bad candidate had squeaked in, it would have been the crowning of D.E.I. ideology. And so Lionel Shriver revealed, up front, that she was "emotionally" pro-Trump in 2024, despite being a longstanding Trump critic.
.
The following is a partial transcript, from "Americano," The Spectator (UK):
_________________
.
LIONEL SHRIVER: 'Emotionally,' I wanted Donald Trump to win. But 'intellectually,' I thought that Harris was probably safer for the country. It would've been a dumpy and annoying administration. It would pass all kinds of things that I didn't want them to. But it wouldn't be that unpredictable. It wouldn't go off the rails. (Kamala) was, ironically, the "conservative option."
But when I learned that Trump had won, I felt quietly happy! With a little undercurrent of anxiety.
I think that the Democrats' characterization of Trump as planning to imprison his opponents and to sic the military on anyone who doesn't agree with him: that was twisting what he has said. You don't need to twist what Donald Trump says. It's extravagant enough already, without taking the next step. And they consistently did that, with everything he said.
I'm not worried that he's going to throw his opponents in jail, in the same way that his opponents tried to throw him in jail. I've always thought that that was an ironic accusation. It's a "kettle, black" situation.
There are a couple things he may do, soon, that I don't mind. If he gets control of the Southern border, and finishes the border wall -- which I figure can't do any harm -- and ideally puts together some legislation that makes enforcement more powerful, I'm all for it. And so is most of the United States. He also doesn't want men com competing in women's sports. I think that's great, too. He leaned in heavily on that issue in his advertising, towards the end of the campaign, so that may be top of mind for now...
This is a summary rejection of progressive identity politics. I am really hoping that this decisive result puts an end to the momentum behind progressive politics and "D.E.I." racially obsessed ideology.
I'm also hopeful that because this race has been followed so avidly, internationally, that it also sends a signal to especially the Anglophone countries that this whole "identity politics" thing is yesterday's news, that it is over. It is not popular. It has been led by a very narrow band of people who have got control of a lot of big institutions, not just in the United States but also in the likes of Britain. It has been rejected. That includes racial preferences in hiring and admission to educational institutions. I would love to see the whole "ball of wax" thrown out. That, to me, is the most cheerful aspect of this election.
The other thing is: It's also a rejection of the fake, empty, insulting politics represented by Kamala Harris! Not just her campaign, but for her but her candidacy. I found that her being run as a credible "president of the United States" insulted the electorate. I completely accept that there are lots and lots of people who also look at Donald Trump that way. Okay. I understand that. And I kind of do too. But he is MORE CREDIBLE than she is. She is a 'nothing'!
The only issue she spoke with ANY persuasive passion about was abortion. I truly believe that she does want abortion to be legal up until fetal viability. I believe this is a real thing that she believes. I'm not persuaded that she believes ANY-thing else. Other than, "It would be fun to be president."
KATE ANDREWS: I take a slightly different view. I also was deeply frustrated by how Kamala decided to campaign. It was a very clear election tactic. that they simply weren't going to say anything detailed about public policy, in the run-up ---
LIONEL SHRIVER: -- say "anything"! Just say "anything"!
KATE ANDREWS: Sometimes the rambling resulted in truly nothing being said/ But I think my frustration came from the fact that I think she DOES believe in quite a lot of things, and I think she was nervous to say so because of how those messages really would have landed in states like Pennsylvania. She really underperformed in Pennsylvania.
There's a remarkable clip from CNN going viral right now as they were breaking down the data on election night. It's asked that the counties were Harris outperformed Biden be brought up on the map, and the map goes blank. Because there isn't a county in Pennsylvania -- not one -- where Harris performed better than Biden. ...Had she actually started talking about the views that she held on fracking back in 2019, those results might have been a lot worse (for her), given that she said consistently that she wanted to ban it.
If you go back to her record in California, when she was attorney general, and look at her record on criminal justice; then if you go to her record in D.C., as a senator, a fairly left-wing more authoritarian candidate emerges. You get this combination of quite left-wing economic agenda combined with pretty hawkish rhetoric on foreign policy combined with an attitude towards criminal justice that both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have been rejecting for years now.
It struck me that she probably DOES have a lot of views and probably IS able to articulate them quite well, when she wants to. But maybe she knew deep down that (her views) are the exact opposite to where the American people are right now. Maybe this was the best tactic to perform as well as she could have, and we're seeing the result of it.
LIONEL SHRIVER: Even on abortion, she has a very narrow vocabulary. She just repeats the same phrases over, and over, and over again. "Women having control of their own bodies," etc., etc. I've NEVER heard her articulate a position, on any other issue (than abortion), in a very coherent or impressive way that has content. I think you're giving her the benefit of the doubt.
I think that she is an opportunist. You can see, when you ask her a question, that what is actually going through her head is: "What am I supposed to say? What is it 'advantageous' for me to say? What trap do I need to avoid? Rather than simply saying what she thinks. It's because what she IS thinking is all "process," it's all politics. It's not the real decisions that you have to make in government, the real positions you need to take. Something that is under-observed is: that kind of empty emptiness, that flimsiness, that refusal to be pinned down, all of it, the whole package, it comes across as WEAK. It's weak.
You'll have had any number of voters tell pollsters that they voted on the basis of the economy. It sounds like a reasonable decision. This is the way American voters are supposed to think about their pocketbook. But I think it's more likely than not that an awful lot of people who say that, were really persuaded by a more amorphous package of qualities in each of these candidates. In Trump, however weird he is, it makes people feel that he's, at least, a powerful and strong figure. Whereas with Harris, you're looking at somebody who is "flimsy," who is kind of "hardly there," who is a "placeholder" for people you don't even know.
She doesn't seem like a president. I don't think this has anything to do with race. I don't even think it has to do with sex. She isn't impressive. She doesn't present of a feeling of a "whole, strong person," who is complete in her core.
She seems like somebody who could easily be controlled. She seems like somebody who doesn't know what she's doing, who doesn't know what she's saying, and doesn't -- in her deepest self -- completely believe that she DESERVES to be in the position that she is in.
I don't think she should have come so far, in her career, as to be "running for president of the United States." And her candidacy was freakish.
One of the reasons that I am very pleased to see her rejected is the way she became a credible candidate for the presidency -- which she should never have been -- she was because she was made vice president on the basis of race and sex. She IS a "D.E.I." candidate. That's what she would have represented, that way of thinking, had she become president. But it was only because Biden said he wanted to appoint a woman, and he was obviously committed, later, to (appointing) a Black woman. This is NOT the way we should choose out leaders! It's twisted. It's demented. It's self-destructive. Those are not qualities, such as intelligence, wisdom, experience, education, contacts, good instincts.
The things you need in a leader have nothing to do with race or sex. Therefore, had she won, it would have been the dominance of this "D.E.I." ideology. It would've been the ultimate (case of D.E.I.). It would NOT have been "breaking the glass ceiling for women." It would have been the triumph of "progressive identity politics."
...
KATE ANDREWS: ...A lot of people are very quickly jumping (to say that)...the election went wrong for Harris because America could not vote for a Black woman. That seems to be the narrative.
So, HAVE we really overcome the identity politics narrative? I could be that the Democratic Party doubles down on that narrative, especially if they're feeling lost.
LIONEL SHRIVER: Of course the Democrats want to paint it that way. I don't find that persuasive at all. It's predictable because they see everything through their lens of race and sex. That's the only way they know how to look at this result.
I would like to see the Democrats do a little more soul-searching. So far they're not soul-searching. They're just name-calling. ...They haven't learned anything. It's more it's more "fascism," it's more authoritarianism, it's the start of very dark days in the United States, it's very gloomy and threatening. There's no sense that they are taking responsibility, at all, for having offered something that the country does not want.
...
Contempt is bad politics. You can't "lecture people into being on your side." It's off-putting. The Obamas made the same mistake, going out and finger-pointing, accusing Black men of of being sexist. This "hectoring" thing, it doesn't work.
_______________
Moderator
Wednesday - November 13th 2024 9:20AM MST
PS: Hello, Alarmist. I was wondering that too, but I just don't think these people are that patient or smart.
Mr. Hail, I'll look for that Lionel Shriver article link. Thanks.
Mr. Hail, I'll look for that Lionel Shriver article link. Thanks.
Moderator
Wednesday - November 13th 2024 9:19AM MST
PS: I am "not a fan", to put it mildly, of that Guest007, but I just read up on the guy. In comparison to Kameltoe, as a human being and a politician, well, there's no comparison actually - he was an infinitely better person and his ideas were infinitely better. Dewey/Sheer Stupidity = Divide by zero ERROR!
Just on sample from wiki:
Dewey supported the decision of the New York legislature to end state funding for child care centers, which were established during the war.[54] The child care centers allowed mothers to participate in wartime industries. The state was forced to provide funding for local communities that could not obtain money under the Lanham Act.[55] Although working mothers, helped by various civic and social groups, fought to retain funding, federal support for child care facilities was considered temporary and ended on March 1, 1946.[56] New York state aid to child care ended on January 1, 1948.[55] When protesters asked Dewey to keep the child care centers open, he called them "Communists".[54]
Right on!
Thomas Dewey lost the nomination for GOP Pres. candidate to Wendell Willkie in 1940, ran against FDR in '44, and ran against Trumam in '48.
What Guest may have been talking about is that Dewey was worried about being negative against his opponent, Harry Truman, that is, based on things that happened in the '44 campaign. His campaign people convinced him to keep away from that, even when his own better judgement told him to defend himself.
From wiki again:
Following this advice, Dewey carefully avoided risks and spoke in platitudes, avoiding controversial issues, and remained vague on what he planned to do as president, with speech after speech being nonpartisan and also filled with optimistic assertions or empty statements of the obvious, including the famous quote: "You know that your future is still ahead of you." An editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal summed it up:
"No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.[68]"
Really? How inept can one be, the Louisville Courier-Journal wanted to know? Have they heard the cackling and the word salad out of this candidate in their future? Perhaps the Great Grandson of "Editor" might want to make a retraction in the Courier-Journal opinion section, to be fair to history.
Anyway, we'd have been better off if Dewey HAD beat Truman, like the headline read. If nothing else, he'd have rooted out the Commies influencing American policy from the State Department. Truman let them do their thing.
Just on sample from wiki:
Dewey supported the decision of the New York legislature to end state funding for child care centers, which were established during the war.[54] The child care centers allowed mothers to participate in wartime industries. The state was forced to provide funding for local communities that could not obtain money under the Lanham Act.[55] Although working mothers, helped by various civic and social groups, fought to retain funding, federal support for child care facilities was considered temporary and ended on March 1, 1946.[56] New York state aid to child care ended on January 1, 1948.[55] When protesters asked Dewey to keep the child care centers open, he called them "Communists".[54]
Right on!
Thomas Dewey lost the nomination for GOP Pres. candidate to Wendell Willkie in 1940, ran against FDR in '44, and ran against Trumam in '48.
What Guest may have been talking about is that Dewey was worried about being negative against his opponent, Harry Truman, that is, based on things that happened in the '44 campaign. His campaign people convinced him to keep away from that, even when his own better judgement told him to defend himself.
From wiki again:
Following this advice, Dewey carefully avoided risks and spoke in platitudes, avoiding controversial issues, and remained vague on what he planned to do as president, with speech after speech being nonpartisan and also filled with optimistic assertions or empty statements of the obvious, including the famous quote: "You know that your future is still ahead of you." An editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal summed it up:
"No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.[68]"
Really? How inept can one be, the Louisville Courier-Journal wanted to know? Have they heard the cackling and the word salad out of this candidate in their future? Perhaps the Great Grandson of "Editor" might want to make a retraction in the Courier-Journal opinion section, to be fair to history.
Anyway, we'd have been better off if Dewey HAD beat Truman, like the headline read. If nothing else, he'd have rooted out the Commies influencing American policy from the State Department. Truman let them do their thing.
Hail
Wednesday - November 13th 2024 8:53AM MST
PS
-- Kamala "worst" controversy continues --
Steve Sailer fan Guest007 says he believes Thomas Dewey was a worse candidate than Kamala.
He allows, however, for Kamala being the worst "Democratic Party candidate" in U.S. history. (....So far.)
-- Kamala "worst" controversy continues --
Steve Sailer fan Guest007 says he believes Thomas Dewey was a worse candidate than Kamala.
He allows, however, for Kamala being the worst "Democratic Party candidate" in U.S. history. (....So far.)
Hail
Wednesday - November 13th 2024 6:51AM MST
PS
-- Kamala as "worst...ever" --
The venerable Mr. Anti-Gnostic, agreeing with the proposition that Kamala was the worst candidate in U.S. history, says this:
"(S)he really was the worst candidate anybody could have ever picked: thin resume', socially awkward and unlikeable outside a Howard sorority, no intellectual chops, no executive ability, no appeal to anybody except whoever still watches Oprah."
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/so-what-happened/comment/76963491
-- Kamala as "worst...ever" --
The venerable Mr. Anti-Gnostic, agreeing with the proposition that Kamala was the worst candidate in U.S. history, says this:
"(S)he really was the worst candidate anybody could have ever picked: thin resume', socially awkward and unlikeable outside a Howard sorority, no intellectual chops, no executive ability, no appeal to anybody except whoever still watches Oprah."
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/so-what-happened/comment/76963491
The Alarmist
Wednesday - November 13th 2024 6:32AM MST
PS
I suspect Cabal decided to do a Larry Silverstein: Install Trump, then “pull it.”
They wanted a candidate who could only lose, but some of the local election officials didn’t read between the lines, which is why she did so well.
🕉
I suspect Cabal decided to do a Larry Silverstein: Install Trump, then “pull it.”
They wanted a candidate who could only lose, but some of the local election officials didn’t read between the lines, which is why she did so well.
🕉
Hail
Wednesday - November 13th 2024 12:02AM MST
PS
"I think the Blue Squad members who worked out this coup were just lazy."
Or arrogant.
The ancient Greeks called it "hubris."
But the key thing is not that it's laziness, arrogance, or 'hubris'. The key thing is the Kamala was the apotheosis of several important streams in the Regime's system: Diversity ideology, first; Feminist ideology, secondarily; and Immigrant Supremacism, maybe thirdly. Maybe other things in there, too, but these feel like the most important ideological planks that produced the absurdity of Kamala nearly being Diversity-promoted all the way to the U.S. presidency.
That Kamala was herself a product of Deep-Blue / Big-Blue San Francisco / California -- a one-party state that has run an anti-White high-low coalition for near thirty years now -- is a clear-enough sign of hubris. In other words, they thought it was right and proper that someone like that could, should!, be promoted up the ladder in an unending process. No strong-enough objections seem to have been raised anywhere along the line. A soft kind of taboo.
Obama squirmed his way up the same ladder, back there, starting in the late 1990s and crowned by the DNC as keynote speaker in August 2004, kind of out of nowhere at the time. There were plenty of questionable aspects of his rise between his first local races in the late 1990s and that 2004 crowning. Eventually he got the presidency and a Nobel Peace Prize, none of it possible had he been a White man (of course). There is a great deal parallel with Kamala.
The point I am trying to make, which is maybe obvious to PS readers, is: figures like Kamala are not RANDOM examples of highly-unqualified and even ridiculous people being promoted up a ladder. They fell into this process specifically and solely because of the set of ideas, doctrines, 'movements,' and taboo-weaving erected in the late-20th century, a set of ideas and power-principles which reached a point of absurdity with the "Wokeness" era.
You hear a few people now saying "Wokeness is Over," which I think is not merited by current availably info and what we know of the Regime and cultural apparatus. But it's certainly at a lower level than the peak period of circa 2018-2022. In that sense it's symbolically right and proper that Kamala lost.
"I think the Blue Squad members who worked out this coup were just lazy."
Or arrogant.
The ancient Greeks called it "hubris."
But the key thing is not that it's laziness, arrogance, or 'hubris'. The key thing is the Kamala was the apotheosis of several important streams in the Regime's system: Diversity ideology, first; Feminist ideology, secondarily; and Immigrant Supremacism, maybe thirdly. Maybe other things in there, too, but these feel like the most important ideological planks that produced the absurdity of Kamala nearly being Diversity-promoted all the way to the U.S. presidency.
That Kamala was herself a product of Deep-Blue / Big-Blue San Francisco / California -- a one-party state that has run an anti-White high-low coalition for near thirty years now -- is a clear-enough sign of hubris. In other words, they thought it was right and proper that someone like that could, should!, be promoted up the ladder in an unending process. No strong-enough objections seem to have been raised anywhere along the line. A soft kind of taboo.
Obama squirmed his way up the same ladder, back there, starting in the late 1990s and crowned by the DNC as keynote speaker in August 2004, kind of out of nowhere at the time. There were plenty of questionable aspects of his rise between his first local races in the late 1990s and that 2004 crowning. Eventually he got the presidency and a Nobel Peace Prize, none of it possible had he been a White man (of course). There is a great deal parallel with Kamala.
The point I am trying to make, which is maybe obvious to PS readers, is: figures like Kamala are not RANDOM examples of highly-unqualified and even ridiculous people being promoted up a ladder. They fell into this process specifically and solely because of the set of ideas, doctrines, 'movements,' and taboo-weaving erected in the late-20th century, a set of ideas and power-principles which reached a point of absurdity with the "Wokeness" era.
You hear a few people now saying "Wokeness is Over," which I think is not merited by current availably info and what we know of the Regime and cultural apparatus. But it's certainly at a lower level than the peak period of circa 2018-2022. In that sense it's symbolically right and proper that Kamala lost.
Hail
Tuesday - November 12th 2024 11:43PM MST
PS
"the utter pure vapidity and worthlessness of Kameloe...How did the Blue-Squad get this loser? WHY did they pick this loser?"
Lionel Shriver had some great commentary on the meaning of Kamala, and the meaning of the strange proces by which such a person could percolate up to the top of such a system as the D-party (Regime party). This is from some days ago. I'll post here later. Lionel Shriver has a way with words to the degree that is just brutal. Not a social-media-style "meme"-like attack, but a brutal analysis that gets to the heart of it.
"the utter pure vapidity and worthlessness of Kameloe...How did the Blue-Squad get this loser? WHY did they pick this loser?"
Lionel Shriver had some great commentary on the meaning of Kamala, and the meaning of the strange proces by which such a person could percolate up to the top of such a system as the D-party (Regime party). This is from some days ago. I'll post here later. Lionel Shriver has a way with words to the degree that is just brutal. Not a social-media-style "meme"-like attack, but a brutal analysis that gets to the heart of it.
Matt Gaetz!! Attorney General! Say no more...