My Unique Take on Donna Brazile Going Rogue

14 11 2017

Washington, D.C.

Aside from the fact that I think her whole book is a gigantic post hoc CYA, and while I do think the DNC at the official level both attempted to rig the 2016 Democrat Presidential primaries and essentially merged with the Clinton political machine, I have never bought into the notion that any of that was the proximate cause of HRC winning the nomination ergo Bernie Sanders not, and even more than that, that outcome would have happened even if such rigging would have never happened.

That’s because there’s a very simple and obvious explanation for HRC’s margin of victory over Bernie:

Black voters.

They were the singular difference in:  (1) HRC winning more states than Bernie, (2) HRC winning more vote-determined delegates than Bernie, and (3) HRC winning more total primary and caucus raw votes than Bernie.  Which means they were the singular difference in HRC winning the nomination overall, because the superdelegates lined up behind her once all three of these things became known.  Back out all black voters, and Bernie wins more states, more regular delegates, more raw votes than HRC, at which time the supers would have fallen in line behind him and given him the nomination.

Another thing that has to be addressed, one of those lies that made it halfway to the other side of the world before the truth was able to get out of bed and put its boots on, is that Donna Brazile never claimed she had the unilateral plenary power to swap out the Clinton-Kaine ticket for a Biden-Booker ticket after HRC’s fainting spell on the 15th anniversary of 9/11.  Personally, I don’t think she was ever really considering doing that in terms of something she wished she could have done, because I don’t remember the political gossip circuit lighting up at the time that she had those desires.  In fact, in searching my own posts, the only entry I have for September/October 2016 with Brazile either in the title or text is a short allusion to this minor scandal that broke about her during that time, but nothing about swapping out Presidential nominees.  I think that is just something she’s saying now for what I just said — post hoc CYA.

Advertisements




Whatchya Doin, Hillary?

14 11 2017

Brooklyn

Just as we in the Alt-Right see spray painted swastika and immediately think, “Whatchya doin’ Rabbi?,” and we see KKK graffiti and immediately think, “Whatchya doin’ Leroy?,” turns out this whole MUH RUSSIA thing was purely a matter of “Whatchya Doin’ Hillary?”

The only way she comes out of this smelling less bad than she otherwise would is if we learn in the long run that the British intel agents exclusively made up the golden showers documents, which of course were the proximate causation of any and every element of the phony “Russian collusion” hysteria/investigation, and at the same time there is affirmative evidence that she thought they were real.  My instincts tell me that she knew that she was paying for hoax documents even if she didn’t help concoct what was in them.  My cynicism informs me that more than that, she was part of the fabrication of the contents.

The much ballyhooed indictment of Paul Manafort, (a matter of Robert Mueller digging for gold and accidentally finding copper), is a paintball that is way more likely to splat in the face of the 2016 Democrat Presidential nominee than the fact of the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee.  Speaking of, when the news broke that Manafort was being indicted, I bet a certain Corey L. did a boogy woogy victory dance.





Already Two Years

16 06 2017

Manhattan

Trump rode down the escalator two years ago today.

Here was my reaction about that on that day.





The Data Game Doesn’t Matter (That Much)

1 06 2017

Brooklyn

Politico:

Clinton: I was the ‘victim’ of an assumption that I would win

And also, the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy.

(snip)

Clinton hit at the Democratic National Committee, too: The DNC, she claimed, handed her an inferior data operation when she won the party’s nomination last summer, while the Republicans had invested heavily in data infrastructure between 2012 and 2016.

But wait!  All we heard for four years was that the Democrats’ data game was first rate and first class.  Now we have to sit hear and listen to her caterwaul about the DNC’s inferior data operation?

From what I can ascertain, DNC/HRC’s data game > RNC/Trump’s, in 2016, and DNC/Obama’s > RNC/Romney’s in 2012.  So, why were the actual outcomes different?

Because in politics, big data don’t matter that much.  See also:  Debates, money.  Sure, you have to have a good enough data game, even if it’s not better than the other person, and you have to do well enough in debates, even if you don’t win them, and you have to have enough money, even if the other person has more.  Data, debates and money are pass/fail propositions, not competitive gradations.  If you pass all three, then the election comes down to other, traditional, way more important factors.

Because the techiest areas of the country are also some of the bluest, that’s why the blue team party will generally and consistently have a better data game than the red team.  From there, it’s a matter of how the data are used:  In 2012, the Obama team thought they used it well, but later we found out that what they used was irrelevant to the outcome of Obama’s victory.  Mainly because the niche “coalition of the ascendant” coalition that the Obama team data game revolved around had a lower turnout rate.  In 2014, the Democrats had more data, but the Republicans used their inferior infrastructure more effectively, by being able to identify, effectively target and turn out the right kind of niche constituencies, especially sporadic turnout red team leaning people.  In 2016, once again, D > R, but, based on bad assumptions which in turn were based on their hubris, Team HRC misused their superior data.





Heavy Weather, Many Many Many Miles Ahead

30 05 2017

Atlanta

The GA-6 hoopla serves as a backdrop for the Silver Mines telling us what we figured out quite some time ago and predicted long before that.

I’m going to take it a step further and reiterate the prediction I made here three years ago that these are gray skies that will remain over blue team club house for a very long time to come.  Provided the democratic republican system is still extant when this happens, i.e. provided there isn’t some drastic political upheaval, one sort of which this neoreactionary is hoping for.  Voting, in voting-intensive political climates with a lot of black people, is something black people really want when they don’t have it, and will use if they get it from a vantage point of never having it before, but like the toy that a six-year old just has to have but quickly gets bored with it, given enough time, black people will get bored with the franchise, and once all the black people who have any conscious memory of a time when they couldn’t vote have become mentally incapable and then moved on to the next world, the black voting rate is going to fall very precipitously, in ways that would shock even Nate Silver.

Something tells me that someone in the blue team deep state has also figured this out, and that’s why that party so badly wants mass immigration.





Case Closed

16 05 2017

Washington, D.C.

It wasn’t the “Russians.”

It wasn’t Kim Dotcom.

It was Seth Rich.

Don’t count on this Russia hysteria to go away, oh no.  Remember, the Fergaza Strip became a closed case on August 18, 2014, a mere nine days after the precipitating event, and by the time August 18 was over, we had both the first autopsy of the remains of GENTILIVUS GIANTIVUS, and also the Ferguson Market’s surveillance footage.  Yet, to this day, coming up on three years on, the fictional narrative is still being used as a justification for various peoples’ and groups’ pet agenda items.





As I Figured

11 05 2017

Washington, D.C.

Census lets loose of 2016 voter demographics research data, as the Bureau tends to do in May or June following the November elections of even-numbered years, Presidential or midterm.

The main conclusion was that black turnout was way down, compared to the two Obama cycles.  That’s something I knew would happen before it actually happened, and after it happened, I was able to confirm my own prediction which turned out to be correct with the fact that the raw total vote counts from heavily black counties and jurisdictions in 2016 was significantly down compared to 2012.  For instance:  St. Louis City had 144k total votes in 2012 compared to 129k in 2016.

Also, this same data set showed that 18-24 yo voters turned out way less in 2012 than they did in 2008 or even 2004.  Though they had a mild increase in 2016 compared to 2012.  The importance of that is that we had to hear a lot of noise in the 2012 postmortem about young voters, Millennials and the coalition of the ascendant.  Then, the Census Bureau in June 2013 came out with this same research, and showed that Obama’s re-election rode on the backs of stratospheric turnout among middle aged and elderly black women.