Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Romney And Palin Announced By Trump Together Would Unite The GOP

The Trump cabinet rumor mill has gone into overdrive with major slots still to be filled. Among those are Secretary of State, perhaps considered the most important, Secretary of The Interior and Secretary of Veteran's Affairs.

Mitt Romney has all the buzz as the prime candidate (of five apparently) for State and, to the excitement of friend and, foe alike (actually more than excitement, mad frenzy would be a better description for  the latter) Governor Palin for either Veteran's or Interior.

It is not my purpose here to dwell on the suitability of either Palin or Romney for the proposed roles but the political ramifications for the GOP.

The party was obviously sorely tested and fractured for the primaries and just held together for the election. Trump, in a Lincolnesque fashion, reached out to the opposition by naming Reince Priebus, the Chair of the Republican national Committee, as his Chief of Staff. He then named conservative senator Jeff Session's an early and loyal backer as his as his Attorney General.

Further appointments have come from the business community, the military, Governor Nikki Haley who opposed Trump, to the U.N. and Mitch McConnell's wife (and highly experienced administrator) Elaine Chao to Transport, balanced politically by close supporter Steve Bannon as Senior Counselor/Chief Strategist.

To completely bind the wounds and place his administration on a rock solid support footing Trump might consider nominating, preferably on the same day, his most strident critic and his most vocal and early supporter i.e. Romney for State and palin for Veteran's Affairs.

Appointing Romney without a major counterbalance would bring howls of outrage from Trump's most vociferous supporters who woudl (and have) call it "an act of betrayal" as Romney elicits little love from those quarters.

Palin on the other hand is near universally loved and admired as a loyal supporter of Trump and a paragon of conservative, Tea Party ethics and principles. But of course such virtues are not appreciated by the GOP Establishment  and especially the media. What the left wing blogs woudl have to say I will leave to the imagination.

Announcing the two on the same day, or within a day or so would have the effect of  pleasing all factions in the GOP as half would admire their choice and accept, grudgingly perhaps but accept, the other. The media would be befuddled between hailing Romney's appointment as an "act of statesmanship" on Romney's part and would not be able to spend much time attacking Palin-and vice versa with Trump loyalists.

Trump is known as the king of "The art of the deal" their would be a further impressive example of his deal-making if he did a Romney/Palin two for one deal

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

The Right Stuff:Recommended Articles For Conservatives 11/29/16

Lots of leftist blather but at least the author understands the "progressive' mind-think. This reinforces my article LINK

Will Hollywood Follow The Zeitgeist And Bring Back "Roseanne" And "Leave It To Beaver""

VOX"Progressive fundamentalism: how Hollywood and the media fortify the bubbles we all live in"


Progressives without Power Hard times for the Sanctimonious White Lady Party


Does Hillary Clinton Have a Guilty Conscience?


The Trump Talent Stack


Vulnerable Dems 

ready to work with 




A. Barton Hinkle column: 

The liberal postmortem is 

not going well



It's Storytelling, 

Stupid: What Made 

Donald Trump Smarter 

Than Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump's Winning Vote Percentage Higher Than 6 Presidents Including Lincoln

Democratic partisans continue with the attempts to denigrate and delegitimize President-Elect Trump through pointing out that Hillary "California" Clinton has a higher percentage of the popular vote.

That such a consideration is meaningless in light of how American elections are actually run seems to be of little import to their propaganda plans. 

But, for the record George W. Bush, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford Hayes and John Quincy Adams all were elected through the Electoral College like Trump with a smaller percentage of the popular vote than their rivals.

Of these Trump's 1.7 point gap behind Clinton is significantly smaller than Hayes 3 point gap and Adams massive 10.5 gap.

The latest iteration of leftist scorn is "President 46% Trump" well let's see how Trump compares with some familiar names;

John Q.Adams      30.9%
Abraham Lincoln  39.8%
Woodrow Wilson  41.8%
Bill Clinton            43.0%
Richard Nixon       43.4%
James Buchanan  45.3%
Grover Cleveland  46.0%
Donald Trump       46.2%

Not that this will stop the "progressives" and their media allies endless assault on Trump as they have no need for facts and of course no shame. 

However, an alert conservatism is on to them and they will never again get away with their propaganda.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

The Right Stuff:Recommended Articles For Conservatives 11/26/16



The Butcher's Bill

Democratic losses in the age of Obama




The Democrats' postmortem problem

How the Left Created Trump

Nov. 8 represented an explosion of anger on the right at years of smugness and disdain by liberals.

Nothing Surer;Green Party Will Be Significant Force/Disaster For Dem's

Update; As inferred in the original post below the Green movement world-wide is on an inexorable rising path. This is further confirmed by the election of a Green candidate as president of Austria;

"Who is Austria's new president, Alexander van der Bellen?" LINK

Original article;

There is absolutely no reason to doubt that Jill Stein's Green Party will be a significant force in American political life at the local, state and presidential level. In point of fact is already is at the national level. Stein's vote totals in Michigan and Wisconsin added to Clinton's would have swung both states to Clinton;

"It is probably a safe bet that none of Jill Stein's voters really care much for Donald Trump. Most likely if we had an 
instant runoff voting so that voters can express their first choice system in which voters can mark a first, second, third, etc. choice, all of them would have put down Hillary Clinton as their second choice. Would it have mattered? Actually, it would have. If the Stein voters had all held their collective noses and voted for Clinton, she would have won Michigan by 0.8% and Wisconsin by 0.1%. That would have changed the Electoral College from Clinton 232 vs. Trump 306 to Clinton 258 vs. Trump 280."

First the statistics;

Presidential election of 2012 Green Party candidate Jill Stein 469,627 votes  0.36% nationwide

Presidential election of 2016  Green Party candidate Jill Stein 1,395,182 votes 1.04%  nationwide
Note; Stein was not even on the ballot in 6 states

Included in Stein's results were (rounded)  246k California/ 100k New York/ 71k Texas 
70k Illinois/ 64k Florida

Stein garnered over 2% of the vote in three states 2.9% Hawaii/ 2.5% Oregon/ 2.0% Vermont

Stein's vote was the party's best by far with the exception of the exceptional year 2000 with an exceptionally high profile candidate in Ralph Nader. 

 As the Democratic Party continues to stick with Pelosi and Schumer in the top leadership positions
and the leftist mood among rank and file gains ascendancy, the leftward swing inside the party will grow.

The fissure could come as early as the 2018 midterm elections. If the Trump administration has even a modicum of economic success the Dem's would be facing possible further senate losses given they have so many vulnerable seats in play.

At that point the choice for the left rank and file will be to try and take over the party with challenges to senior leaders or, more likely, to cast about for an alternative that suits their agenda.

Ron Johnson, the Libertarian leader advised he will not run again and it seems unlikely that anyone else has the profile to build on his 2016 votes. At that point the Greens become the obvious vehicle for Johnson's substantial vote a lot of which must surely have been leftist protest votes which could easily move to the Greens.

Gary Johnson 4,416,589 3.29%  His own state of New Mexico counted for 74,544 votes.

Jill Green offered Bernie Sanders the presidential candidate slot and the message was very clear.
Green doesn't need Sanders now but can use that outreach at what may be a critical time to offer her party as a vehicle for disaffected Dem's. 

Stein has shown her self to be a savvy politician with her quixotic "recount challenge" for the key rust belt states which raised millions of dollars almost overnight while further raising her profile. It was noticeable that the radical leftist Unite Blue faction was vigorously giving their support to Stein's ploy.

If this scenario plays out the danger for the Democratic party is manifest and massive. The Dem's simply can't afford to have a permanent 4%, at a minimum, bled off their support from the left. If the Greens and the Libertarian remnant get anywhere near 10% in 2020 then states like Oregon, Maine and Virginia would be in play for the GOP and New Hampshire/Colorado would be a lock to be added to the rust belt states and Florida.

The Green Party's as a political movement have been, since the 1990's, an unstoppable force as an opposition party or coalition opposition worldwide and in some cases as actual party's of government. 

Even given America's difficult to break two party monopoly the Greens are poised to commence their ascent. They will never have the presidency but they will be a force and initially would pose a near mortal danger to the Democratic Party until some sort of fusion, as happened with William Jennings Bryan and the Dem/Populist merger eventuates. 

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

The Right Stuff: Recommended Reading 11/23/16

Can the Republican Party Keep Trump Democrats?



Democrats search for answers to stem a spreading Republican tide

Scott Adams (Dilbert) eccentric but  excellent insights

Persuasion Versus Populism


Total Destruction: The Democratic Party Has Gone Extinct In Working Class Appalachia


Extract (why Trump must succeed): "We need more sanctuary cities, for example. "

Robert Reich's 8-Point Plan for a New Democratic Party



We are witnessing the end of the liberal era

Monday, November 21, 2016

The Right Stuff: Recommended Reading 11/21/16

The 2016 Election demise of Democratic Dinotopia



Pathetic that a conservative academic woman has to hide in the shadows


Brace Yourself for Four Years of Nonstop Freakoutrage


The Black Community Mayoral Election That Foretold A Trump Presidency

There were two highly significant factors in the election of Donald Trump to the presidency and both relate o the African American community.

Trump increased his share of the Black vote (and the Hispanic vote) over Romney's 2012 performance

Clinton had a marked decrease in Black voter support from President Obama's 2012 total as per Wayne County (Detroit) Michigan which was more than enough to cost her the state.

If Black voters had turned out for Clinton as they did for Obama, while Trump's share of their support decreased from Romney's, then it is highly probable she would have been elected. But they didn't.

Three obvious factors are seen here. Firstly, Black support for President Obama at his massive level (95%) was not transferable, in its entirety, to Clinton. This no doubt was the result of massive pride in the first Black president moving unprecedented numbers to vote for Obama. In 2012 for the first time Black turnout was larger than White turnout.

Secondly Black voters did not see Clinton as an inspiring figure. Clearly her campaign of "I am not Trump" had little resonance for the concerns of the African American community, neither did the opportunity to put the first woman into the White House.

Thirdly, as perhaps the most significant and little remarked on reason, was that despite all the "KKK/David Duke/ "racist" scaremongering the Black community did not see Trump in such a light. 

There can be no doubt that if he had been perceived as a genuinely racist threat then despite Clinton's lack of appeal they would have turned out for her in larger, decisive numbers.

Simply put neither the media nor the Democratic campaign could find a single instance of any racism or racist statement by Trump over his entire long career in the public spotlight. So apparently unconcerned by "Trump racism" were 18-29 year Black voters in Florida that 8% felt they had the luxury of voting for either Stein or Johnson over Clinton

However significant numbers of leading Black churchmen supported Trump, the "Diamond and Silk" ladies supported Trump vociferously from start to finish on social media, and Trump's friendly treatment of Dr. Carson and Carson's subsequent support would not have gone unnoticed.

The clear signals that Black voters were ready to consider not voting for a Democratic candidate, and further for electing a White candidate, were first seen in a major and highly significant way in retrospect was the election of Mike Duggan as Mayor of Detroit in November 2013. Detroit's population is 80% Black yet Duggan won by ten points as the first White mayor in 40 years.

A year later in rock solid Democratic Maryland wit a Black population of around 20%, Republican Larry Hogan, a businessman defeated his Black Democratic rival for the governorship.

In both these elections the mood was for economic and structural change, as the voices in the links make absolutely clear, with no indication of any concerns whatsoever as regards race. 

It would be foolish not to consider Trump's win, which was based absolutely on that structure, as not being in direct descent from these two striking elections. And further to also conclude that Trump's "what do you have to  lose" appeal to the Black community was a perfectly reasoned and reasonable statement which resonated and to which Clinton had no reply.

If Trump succeeds in reinvigorating the African American community economically whilst ensuring their social concerns are met the Democratic Party will be in 
serious trouble. That his will ultimately have been of their own doing will be seen as having been foretold in Detroit and Maryland

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Romney For Secretary of State? If The Shoe Fits-Why Not

After meeting with President Elect Trump and VP Elect Pence for the second time, the fact that Governor Romney said only that they had a wide ranging discussion on America in the world, leads to the conclusion he will be offered  the Secretary of State cabinet post

If his answers to their questions in that area were a good fit that is

 I suspect that the Trump administration would pursue an America First general foreign policy whilst being hard nosed in foreign affairs where America's best interest requires that stance.

 I have no problem with Romney as Secretary of State especially as it would have no affect on the Trump administrations domestic agenda and would be good optics whilst stifle the lib media who are foaming at the mouth over "hard right Trump administration appointments"

Friday, November 18, 2016

Final Word On The Matter; Trump Was Always Going To Win

I set out in detail why the USC/LATimes tracking Poll was the "Gold Standard" of polling. Basically because it had a large fixed demographic and regionally selected group of respondents who were regularly contacted.

Logically their views as the changed, or not, they were a genuine reflection of the thinking of the voting electorate. One media source dismisses this as 'a lucky chance that all the demographics accidentally fell into place' which, given the large sample of voters, is just silly and another attempt to explain away the media and polling failure.

The graph below sets out the Trump (red) versus Clinton (blue) preferences from early September, when people are starting to take the election seriously. As is obvious, except for a brief period after the release of the ridiculous Bush/Trump "sex tape" Trump led for almost the entire time i.e he was always going to win and all the media beat-ups, distortions, fake polls, outright lies etc. had no lasting effect on Trump's eventual win.

That USC overstated Trump's popular vote has no bearing on their performance. They, and the IBD, PPD polls also gave Trump a popular vote lead with IBD at 1% and PPD at less than 1% being closer to the final result. But all three were within the margin of error and it is their positive Trump performance over time that is the real indicator of success.

Further the Democratic super majority in California is an automatic distortion of popular vote totals nationwide, Especially so as the Republican vote is obviously depressed as there are basically no down ticket Republicans to vote for at the senate level or competitive congressional races and usually the presidential race is settled before the California polling places close

In the end and quite simply the voters wanted change for a multitude of individual and collective reasons and were determined to get change no matter the distractions. The honest USC Poll picked that up and was correct as they had been, using the same methodology in 2012. 

The "one off" MSM polls proved to be grossly distorted with their over weighting of Democrats or blatantly incompetent or even dishonest. It is unlikely they will be taken seriously again.

As James E. Campbell sets out the aggregate of professional forecasters predictions from September were almost exactly what the final popular vote result was. The October-November election coverage was "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury  signifying nothing"

How Accurate Were the Political Science Forecasts of the 2016 Presidential Election?

James E. Campbell,
With the dust settling from one of the most brutal and nasty presidential campaigns in modern American history and with the late vote returns creeping up to a final count, it is time to take stock of the presidential election forecasts offered initially to readers of the Crystal Ball website and then published in the October issue of PS: Political Science and Politics. Despite the surprising electoral vote victory of Donald Trump, the vote count as of one week after the election indicates that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received 50.5% of the two-party popular vote cast nationwide to Republican President-elect (yes, it is still jolting) Trump’s 49.5%.
So how did the forecasts do? From late June to early September in Sabato’s Crystal Ball, eight forecasters or teams of forecasters issued 10 presidential election forecasts of the national two-party popular vote (along with the PollyVote meta-forecast assembled from array of different types of forecasts). Aside from a few minor updates, these were the same forecasts later published in PS (in no case did the difference between the Crystal Ball and PS reported forecast differ by more than two-tenths of a percentage point). Table 1 reports the forecasts from the closest to the actual vote division as it appears at this time to the forecast with the largest absolute error.

Table 1: Political science forecasts of the 2016 presidential election

Notes: *As of noon on Nov. 16, 2016, the two-party vote for Hillary Clinton was 50.5% (with 130.5 million total votes reported) as calculated from data made available from official sources gathered by David Wasserman. **A preliminary forecast from Lewis-Beck and Tien reported in mid-August was 51.1%. Their final and “official” forecast published in PS and presented at the American Political Science Association meeting is used here.

In an election with plenty of ups and downs in the polls and more than its share of controversies, from the revelation of a salacious old audio tape of Donald Trump to an off-again, on-again FBI probe of Hillary Clinton, and with non-academic daily-changing “forecasts” bouncing around erratically, the political science presidential forecasts generally fared quite well and several were extremely accurate. Five of the 10 forecasts were within one percentage point of the actual voteThese include forecasts by Lockerbie, the Jeromes, Lewis-Beck and Tien as well as the forecasts from my two models. Three of these forecasts missed the actual vote by less than half of a percentage pointAnother three of the forecasts (Abramowitz and the two entries by Erikson and Wlezien) were within two points of the vote. Holbrook’s forecast was two points off the vote. Norpoth’s forecast of a Trump popular vote majority had the largest vote percentage error, though it was made in early March, more than 35 weeks before the election, and was still within three points of the actual vote.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

The Right Stuff; Recommended Reading 11/18/16

How Trump will double growth and jobs

The key is an America-first, pro-business approach to economic policy

Donald Trump and the real black swan event

The actual aberration was the election of Barack Obama
The Coming Permanent Republican Majority


(Doom and Gloom especially for Black women)

How Should Women Financially Prepare for the Trump Years?

 Harlem Willing to Give Trump a Chance



The Coming Permanent Republican Presidency

UPDATE: This analysis lends further weight to the population drift/Electoral College proposition;

"When I say the blue states are in a depression, I don’t mean the collective funk they are in because they lost the election to Donald Trump.
I’m talking about an economic depression in the blue states that went for Hillary. Here is an amazing statistic. Of the 10 blue states that Hillary Clinton won by the largest percentage margins — California, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut — every single one of them lost domestic migration (excluding immigration) over the last 10 years (2004-14). Nearly 2.75 million more Americans left California and New York than entered these states.
They are the loser states. They are all progressive. High taxes rates. High welfare benefits. Heavy regulation. Environmental extremism. Super minimum wages. Most outlaw energy drilling. The whole left-wing playbook is on display in the Hillary states. And people are leaving in droves. Day after day, they are being bled to death. So much for liberalism creating a worker’s paradise.
Now let’s look at the 10 states that had the largest percentage vote for Donald Trump. Everyone of them — Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Idaho — was a net population gainer.
This is part and parcel of one of the greatest internal migration waves in American history as blue states especially in the northeast are getting clobbered by their low tax, smaller government rivals in the south, southeast and mountain regions."

Of course there won't be a "permanent" Republican or Democratic majority (Sean Trende "The God That Failed) in the universal sense, there never has been such a situation in the country's history and never will be. 

Even President Monroe's effective one party state "era of good feelings" and the dominance of the Democratic-Republican Party after the collapse of the Federalists (1801-1825) ended with the ascension of Andrew Jackson and the resumption of the two party system.

What the Republicans have under president Trump is the opportunity to cement in place a long period of Electoral College dominance until some major unforeseen event, like a war or depression, changes things once again.

That sort of "permanent majority' has happened on a number of occasions. The Democratic party had just two presidents from 1860 to 1932-72 years! If it were not for the great depression who can say how much longer that trend may have continued. The wheel turned though and from 1932 to 1952 there were no Republican presidents.

Since then the two groupings have swapped back and forth, usually with two term presidents, with the exception of the Reagan two term 'era of good feelings" extending to a G.W.H Bush further four years.

What gives the Republicans the opportunity to cement in place a solid "red wall" Electoral College majority, it being taken for granted that with New York and California voting massively for any Democratic candidate the odds will always be against a Republican winning the popular vote, is the nature of Trump's victory.

         Trump 306 Electoral votes Clinton 232 (270 required)

The GOP won back from the huge defeat in 2008 the G.W. Bush 2004 states, which were lost to Obama, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio (once) and Iowa (twice). Missouri, which McCain narrowly held has become a solid red state subsequently. On the other hand it appears that New Mexico and Virginia have become solid blue states no matter how much a lead the early results favor the GOP in the latter.

Commentators see a structural movement, via demographics, in state support which considers a slow but steady process of "sunbelt" and some Southern states shifting to the Democratic Party. 

It is clear, as the 2016 election showed that Barack Obama was an electoral aberrationexceptional circumstances, 
rather than a true shift to the Democratic Party

The GOP gained six Electoral College votes after the last census-equal to an Iowa. The next census will show a further population drift South and more EC votes for the GOP. New York has gone from 41 EC votes to 29 since 1980 as Texas has increased from 26 to 38.

This is purported to be caused by a rising Hispanic population in Arizona, which would eventually see that state follow New Mexico, and a population drift from the North to Georgia allied to an increasing Hispanic population and larger Black turnout which would shift the state into the Democratic column.

The counterweight to this is what delivered the election to Trump now without having to wait for the slow grind of demographics. Trump kept Georgia, North Carolina Texas and Arizona, states that are supposedly under threat, whilst winning the true battleground state of Florida and the "rust belt' states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin against nearly all pundit predictions.

A simple mathematical calculation shows who would come off  best if the predicted trends fully eventuate. If the Democrat's pick up Arizona and Georgia (Texas is not going anywhere and if it did then most certainly the Democrat's would have a "permanent majority") they gain 27 votes. If the GOP can keep
Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania they gain 64 electoral, votes a net gain of 37.

Much has been made of the Dem's structural advantage of having a bedrock head start of 84 electoral votes from New York and California. The striking change in this situation, if the GOP can hold the four rust belt states, is that these votes plus Texas would give them a 102 EC vote head start. 

Republicans could lose Arizona and Georgia and still win, holding Florida of course, with 279 votes. Further, if the GOP keeps those two states in their column they could even lose Florida and still win.

The future of the permanent Republican majority lies very much in the new administrations hands.
If Trump can deliver even a sense of progress for the benighted blue collar workers in the rust belt states so they turn out for him in such massive numbers again, then the GOP has every chance of keeping them in their column.

Similarly with the Hispanic community who turned out for him (29%) at about the same level as they did for Romney, without the massive losses the pundits predicted. If they find their economic situation bettered and the illegals/dreamers/wall/Cuba problems dealt with fairly, there is no reason why that communities progress into the middle class and Republican support can continue. 

Hispanic's were the largest movers into the GOP column of all faith based communities (as were Catholics generally) and the new administrations pro-life and Supreme Court nominee, presumably a conservative, may accelerate that trend.

The Black community which turned out so massively for Barack Obama had no such overwhelming love for Hillary Clinton. President  Obama won 95 % of Black voters in 2012 to Romney's 5% Not only did Black's not turn out for her in the 2012 numbers in Detroit, which cost her the state, but total Black support dropped to 88% whilst Trump increased to 8%.

Black voters went from overwhelming support for the Republicans in 1928 to overwhelming support for FDR in 1932 for economic reasons. There are indications that if Trump continues his outreach to the Black community which post-election is in a watching and waiting mode, delivers jobs, helps reduce crime (whilst encouraging fair and balance policing) and removes illegals as job competitors, that 8% could increase strikingly. 

If that did eventuate, or more realistically the optics were such that obvious improvement had commenced, the Democratic Party would be in a world of trouble. 
There could even be the possibility of a further expansion of the GOP's map into New Hampshire, Maine and Minnesota all narrowly lost in 2016

The GOP stands on the brink of a possible major tectonic shift in its favor. The party totally dominates government holding a majority in Congress, State Governors and state legislatures, state Congressional delegations, the Supreme Court and an overwhelming number of counties;

Many ducks have to be in a row, but if Trump can pull it off, the semi-permanent "permanent Republican majority" is well within reach.