Political parties can die.

ParteiMord02

Every mainstream political party needs a mass power base of supporters. It’s a simple numbers game. If they don’t have it, they’ll always be minor players. If they had one but lose it, they drop back to being minor players or go extinct. Their support base will migrate to another party, which will then start to become a major player.

For instance, the original Liberal Party in Britain became a minor player and the Whig Party disappeared completely, both to the benefit of an emergent Conservative Party. In America, the Whig Party destroyed itself over the slavery question and its support base went on to create the Republican Party. One of the founders of the party, a certain Abraham Lincoln, was an abolitionist. Contrary to some popular delusions, he was an old style Republican, because amongst a number of reasons that was the party which might end slavery.

What destroys parties is they lose touch completely with their natural power base, resulting in a schism producing a new party which is more closely attuned to the current aspirations of what was historically their supporters. Around the civilised world, that drift of mainstream politics away from support bases is all too apparent. It’s mainly happening to nominally left-wing parties, but the right-wing ones are also suffering from exactly that same malaise, but have some mitigating factors.

However, you might just see a Republican schism in Cleveland this coming July at the party convention, even though it’d almost certainly hand Clinton the presidency by splitting the vote. That one will be decided in the coming months by the GOP establishment and Trump playing chicken for the Republican ticket, and he’s the one with nothing to lose if they decide to play that game, because he might just run as an independent. They managed the Trump phenomenon spectacularly stupidly, and now it’s far too late to stop it without big political damage. They may have to live with the results either way.

An interesting scenario of him being able to win in that independent situation is how well he could damage his main contender Clinton, who despite all the Marxist delusions of Hollywood political innocents like Susan Sarandon, looks almost certain to be the Democrat ticket. There’s a school of opinion that thinks the Clintons are the most corrupt and scandal-prone politicians in the last century of US politics. Certainly, his presidency was plagued with sexual and financial scandals, but he always managed to wiggle out of them relatively intact, but by some accounts she’s not exactly lily-white herself.

Trump has an estimated ten billion dollars of personal wealth, and that buys a lot of investigative legwork as well as paying people handsomely to dish the dirt on the Clintons. Sure, the dirt might fly in either direction, but my feeling is it’d stick to the Clintons a lot more. He’s a bad boy already and wouldn’t have any problem using ammo like that, even if it resulted in the dirtiest presidential campaign ever.

Before you dismiss that scenario out of hand, consider he was written off ten months ago and has since successively out-politicked all of his professional nomination contenders. The mistake the GOP and media made time after time was underestimating him. Don’t do the same. Despite the simplistic catch phrases, the demagogue speeches and the awful comb over, he actually read the mood of the party and more importantly the mood of the country much better than all of them put together.

A colder appreciation of his campaign is that running as an independent was always the end run strategy, because he knew he’d always be outside the GOP establishment but the party cachet would provide the initial slingshot at the presidency, which indeed it has.

On the left hand side of the debate, the same alienation from the support base has occurred, but I think with much more severe consequences. Historically, the leftward parties had the support of the workers or blue-collar lumpenproletariat of the early twentieth century. In the aftermath of the twin whammy of the fall of the Soviet Union and the death of the liberal dream in the eighties, crushed by people like Reagan and Thatcher who’d emerged to popular relief out of the previous decade of political chaos, the left tried to reposition its appeal.

Essentially, no longer having many downtrodden workers to appeal to, they redirected their appeal to vanishing small and seriously disadvantaged demographics within society, in the sure and certain hope that all the previously downtrodden serfs, who’d by now become lower middle class house-owning serfs would rally around the old flag.

To some extent that worked for a while, but what they failed to recognise was it was a transitory phase in the graduation of their power base to a first generation property-owning demographic who saw their upwardly mobile ambitions for their children being threatened by left-wing parties who had embraced the minorities to the exclusion of their own power base.

The perception became, and that’s all that matters in politics, was that they cared more about various tiny minorities than their own bedrock supporters, and that’s why the left did so badly in the wake of the eighties. The first politician to see the left had to be restructured and pointed at a changed power base was Tony Blair of the Labour Party in Britain. He won three back to back elections and is nearly universally reviled by left-wingers despite being their most electorally successful leader ever. As PJ O’Rourke remarked, if Stalin couldn’t please the left, what chance did somebody like Tony Blair have?

He handed the leadership over to a more hard left bozo called Gordon Brown who immediately ran the party into the ground by shifting it to the left and lost the next election. What he and the party had failed to realise was that the workers, having for the first time ever got their foot on the prosperity ladder, were in no mood to put all that in danger’s way by trusting some metropolitan elite professional politicians who thought they knew what was best for them. Their instincts in that respect were quite correct.

In what can only be seen as a completely irrational response to that defeat, the party fielded an even more left-wing leader called Ed Milliband for the next election, and he duly delivered the worst general election result in the entire history of the Labour Party.

In what can only be seen as an even more terminally insane response to that crushing defeat, the party doubled up and even went one further, electing yet another leader called Jeremy Corbyn who is more to the left than Joseph Stalin and stands just about as much chance of being elected.

Running a local protest group would be right on the extreme edge of his performance envelope with anything more challenging leaving him drowning in the shallow end of the pool.

He’s stacked his shadow cabinet with the only people who’re politically stupid enough to accept the poison chalice invitation of serving in it and as one would expect, they’re a curious selection of the hitherto untouchable lepers on the outer fringes of the party.

Hasbeens, neverwozzers, anti-Semites, ex-girlfriends, economic illiterates and the just plain dumb, stupid and incompetent. You name it, they’re in it. After losing the next two general elections, the party will schism or a Blair-like figure will emerge to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Either way, the Party is already in the intensive care unit and UKIP is steadily hoovering up its appalled voter base.

With militant fanatics now in nominal control of what used to be a mainstream serious party and determined to run Stalinist purges of the moderate elements, my money’s on a Labour Party schism but we’ll see.

The recent history of the left in America is slightly different. The similarities to some extent are quite striking, but so are the differences. In Britain, you’re looking at a north south divide in terms of prosperity, with the former being the rusted manufacturing base of the country and the latter the sunrise intangible businesses. In America, it’s what’s between the prosperous coasts that’s died the slow death; once massive manufacturing powerhouses like Detroit have shrunk to ten percent of their population sizes within a decade.

One of the similarities would be working people finally getting to own their homes but that turned out to be illusory, because the way it was done turned out to be devastating in the downturn of the economic cycle.

In Britain, tenants of what was local government housing were offered the opportunity to buy their home at a fraction of its market worth and they piled in big time. The discount was so deep, it didn’t take much effort to service your mortgage even in the economic down cycles.

In America, Bill Clinton relaxed all the bank loaning laws that had been put into place after the bankruptcies of the great depression, in return for the lending institutions handing out mortgages like candy but for fully priced properties to blue-collar workers who ordinarily wouldn’t have passed the credit check.

Once the economy nose dived, the mortgages, artfully wrapped into opaque financial instruments like collateralised debt obligations, couldn’t be serviced by unemployed workers, and that was what was actually behind the stock market crash of 2008. A slowing economy, the resultant unemployment, house repossessions, a deregulated and over-leveraged financial services industry holding suddenly toxic loans nobody could price and behind it all a president who was just engaged in the old pork barrel politics of buying votes.

The same minorities card has been successfully played by the Democrats for the last two elections. On the style front, that would be the LGBT community but the voting power of that demographic doesn’t add up to a hill of beans. What’s really important is playing the race card, which means garnering the votes of the black and Hispanic communities, because they add up to about twenty percent of the population. If you’ve ever wondered why Obama is somehow the most racially divisive president in US history, it’s because with every over-hyped victimhood soundbite, he’s cementing that particular demographic to the Democrat Party.

Having a black man as president has reinforced that cynical and exploitive appeal but I believe the penny has started to drop with those voting demographics. Despite two Obama administrations, the net worth of the American middle class has continued to go backwards, so you can guess how well those whites, blacks and Hispanics lower down the economic pecking order have fared. The Democrats insist on casting them in some beleaguered persecuted minority role when all they want are jobs and a future for their families. It’s the economy, stupid, not some deliberately exacerbated and internecine race war.

If you really want to see a graphic example of the patrician attitude of the political elite to black people, listen to a Chicago born Hilary Clinton doing her best attempt at a southern negro impression to rapturous applause in Selma, Alabama from the party faithful. I’m sure it’s seen as très amusant around the private dining tables of Washington DC, but if you don’t have a strong stomach, best not to click it, and if you’re black, you’ll probably have to restrain yourself from smashing the screen.

The process of traditional supporters of a party disconnecting from it is more advanced in Europe, and I see the same thing happening in America, but there is one vital difference. In laissez-faire Europe it’s harder for extreme parties to grow but that’s happening to some extent with significant advances in national elections over migrant issues. In the main what’s actually occurring is the more dotty the left becomes, people are by default having to vote for right-wing parties which they don’t hold in any particular high regard, but it’s the only rational choice left in town. It’s either go full on neo-Nazi or resign yourself to voting for the moderate right.

In America, after eight years of a basically stagnant economy, a disastrous foreign policy that’s reduced the USA to a laughing stock around the world and no sign of improvement in sight, it’d be time to let the Republicans in again, even though they’re indistinguishable from the Democrats – they’re all perceived as Washington beltway high-end glitterati trash anyway.

However, the difference is there is a third choice on offer; the dreaded Trump. He’s nominally running as a Republican, and the party grandees of course hate him, but he’s attracting that disaffected power base from both sides of the political spectrum, though nobody wants to admit that fact.

What’s interesting is there was nearly an equivalent to trump in the Democratic primaries – Bernie Sanders – and for the same reasons outlined above. In years gone by, any candidate announcing themselves to be a socialist in the primaries would have been the kiss of death. In conservative America, it would have been equivalent to admitting you’re a Communist.

He took an unexpectedly big bite out of the party’s anointed presidential runner Clinton, but his misjudgment was he was afraid to be as outspoken as Trump. He could have backed the Democratic party into exactly the same dilemma Trump has done with the Republican one, but I don’t think he ever saw that. You can be virtuous or you can be politically astute and Trump, unlike Sanders, knows that.

Sanders had a deeper problem though. Yes, he was a protest by the party faithful, but they knew all of his policies revolved around raising taxes which they knew meant they’d be taking home less in their pay packet. The chic left love him because they can afford him and his policies but the working schmucks can’t.

Trump on the other hand is saying America was always essentially a business, and lately we’ve had nothing but smug and greedy idiots in the board room running it for their own benefit. I’m a successful businessman, vote for me, put me in charge and by God I’ll get us back to what we’ve always done well – building prosperity and making lots of money.

No ifs, no buts, no conditions, no caveats, no equivocation – and that’s his appeal.

©Pointman

Related articles by Pointman:

People are pissed off.

The loss of faith in the political class.

UK Election 2015 – The car crash of the chatterati against reality.

Click for a list of other articles.

 

Comments
24 Responses to “Political parties can die.”
  1. jccarlton says:

    Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    Here’s a good analysis of what’s happening to the Republican Party. Sometimes a good outside look can change your perspective.

  2. Michael 2 says:

    Excellent essay and spot-on; the business of America *is* business as was said long ago.

    “UKIP is steadily hovering up its appalled voter base.”

    Hoovering. Hoover, the brand of vacuum cleaner/sweeper, became the generic term for the device in England and perhaps elsewhere.

    Fixed, ta Michael. Pointman

  3. Some interesting invective here :-
    http://fredoneverything.org/the-mask-comes-off-putrefaction-most-foul/
    Very much in line with your thoughts, Pointman

  4. Graeme No.3 says:

    Much the same could be said of Australia, although we have the advantage that the left loonies of the Labor Party have started moving to the Greens. In response the Labor Party apparatchiks have tried to follow them on policy. With the resultant empty middle ground the (conservative) Liberal Party has marched into the gap, aiming to catch up with the Left. Their present leader isn’t trusted by many of the Party faithful but is trying to carner votes from those who go to the election booth because it is compulsory but with no real interest in either party or their ‘policies’ because they see little difference.
    I was at a talk by 2 economists yesterday. They started by pointing out that there was wide spread unease about the future, which was justified. Their view was
    The Central or Reserve Banks don’t know what to do.
    The commercial banks are frantically trying to stay solvent by borrowing and lending to anything that pays a bit higher interest.
    The stock market is a chaotic casino employing people with no idea of what is happening.
    The politicians are even more clueless than usual.
    Debt is so high that a major depression (major as in bigger and longer than the 1930′s) is inevitable.
    There will be revolutions and democracy will probably not survive.

    Who said economics was the gloomy subject? Obviously both are retired so can say what they believe.

    • Old Rooster says:

      Mrs Rooster and I are quite addicted to archaeology programs of various styles that have proliferated on TV screens in the last decade or two. If there is a common thread it is this—that civilisation is fragile and that any particular example can collapse suddenly. Specific causes can vary from invasion by a hostile rival civilisation to political ineptitude to major changes in environment (rivers change course, desertification, etc) but ultimately it boils down to the economy failing. I don’t think that because the dominant civilisation of today is global that it is immune from collapse, rather that implies the possibility of a domino effect.

      Who said economics was a gloomy subject? Here’s what Mr Wiki has to say—

      The dismal science

      “The dismal science” is a derogatory alternative name for economics coined by the Victorian historian Thomas Carlyle in the 19th century. The term drew a contrast with the then-familiar use of the phrase “gay science” to refer to song and verse writing.

      Origin

      The phrase “the dismal science” first occurs in Thomas Carlyle’s 1849 tract called Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question, in which he argued in favor of reintroducing slavery in order to regulate the labor market in the West Indies:

      Not a “gay science,” I should say, like some we have heard of; no, a dreary, desolate and, indeed, quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science.

      It was “dismal” in “find[ing] the secret of this Universe in ‘supply and demand,’ and reducing the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone”. Instead, the “idle Black man in the West Indies” should be “compelled to work as he was fit, and to do the Maker’s will who had constructed him”.

      False etymology

      It is often stated incorrectly that Carlyle gave economics the nickname “the dismal science” as a response to the late 18th century writings of Thomas Malthus, who grimly predicted that starvation would result as projected population growth exceeded the rate of increase in the food supply. Carlyle did indeed use the word “dismal” in relation to Malthus’ theory in Chartism (1839):

      The controversies on Malthus and the ‘Population Principle’, ‘Preventive Check’ and so forth, with which the public ear has been deafened for a long while, are indeed sufficiently mournful. Dreary, stolid, dismal, without hope for this world or the next, is all that of the preventive check and the denial of the preventive check.

      Criticism

      Carlyle’s view was attacked by John Stuart Mill as making a virtue of toil itself, stunting the development of the weak, and committing the “vulgar error of imputing every difference which he finds among human beings to an original difference of nature”.

      Beyond Carlyle

      Many at the time and afterward have understood the phrase in relation to the grim predictions drawn from the principles of 19th century “political economy”. According to Humphry House:

      Carlyle’s phrase, ‘the dismal science’, has been so often quoted, that there is a risk of thinking that the opinion behind it was confined to him and his followers; but the opinion was widespread, and thought to be a justifiable inference from the works of the economists: ‘No one,’ said J. E. Cairnes, ‘can have studied political economy in the works of its earlier cultivators without being struck with the dreariness of the outlook which, in the main, it discloses for the human race. It seems to have been Ricardo’s deliberate opinion that a substantial improvement in the condition of the mass of mankind was impossible.’ It is not merely that the Malthusian principle of population and the doctrine that wages must normally and necessarily fall to the minimum point were gladly accepted by wicked exploiters as the justification of their profits; but thousands whose immediate interests were not touched by these beliefs found it difficult to avoid them. … Malthus hung over England like a cloud. It is difficult now to realize what it meant to thousands of good and sensible men that they believed his principle of population to be exactly true—believed that as poverty was relieved and the standard of life raised, so surely there would be bred a new race hovering on the misery-line, on the edge of starvation. However they might wish it false, they feared it true…

  5. Many excellent insights, as always, Pointman! And from my vantage point here in Canada, I see the same game emerging from political playbooks across the country. To some extent I would place the blame on our respective education systems – which, from my perspective, have been going steadily downhill for over forty years. Far too many voters no longer know how to think and are far too willing to blindly follow the leader with the most mindless messages.

    Consider, for example, the relatively recent election of dimpled Mr. Selfie, aka Trudeau Jr. He’s an equally intellectually deficient and divisive Obama-clone – who panders to the lowest common denominator, here in Canada. His cabinet is replete with ignoramuses and other assorted mindless twits, half of whom are women (because – as Jr. had asserted at the time of their appointment – “it’s 2015”)!

    But what I find to be equally disturbing is that politicians whom I once admired (e.g. the now retired but very eloquent Stephen Lewis) have jumped onto the inanity bandwagon, including – of course – the “climate change is the greatest threat …” mantra. Lewis has even gone so far as to endorse the ludicrous LEAP manifesto, written and flogged by his daughter-in-law and her eco-pals.

    All of which certainly makes me glad that my ex and I didn’t have any offspring! But I do despair for the future of my nieces and great-nephews. They all reside in Ontario … which, back in my days there, used to be “a place to stand and a place to grow”. But, alas, that was long, long ago and (now) far away.

    I suspect that the tide will eventually turn, as it always has. But, from my current vantage point as a “senior citizen” of this once great country, I have some doubts as to whether or not I shall live to see that day.

  6. Pointman says:

    Many excellent insights, as always, Pointman! And from my vantage point here in Canada, I see the same game emerging from political playbooks across the country. To some extent I would place the blame on our respective education systems – which, from my perspective, have been going steadily downhill for over forty years. Far too many voters no longer know how to think and are far too willing to blindly follow the leader with the most mindless messages.

    Consider, for example, the relatively recent election of dimpled Mr. Selfie, aka Trudeau Jr. He’s an equally intellectually deficient and divisive Obama-clone – who panders to the lowest common denominator, here in Canada. His cabinet is replete with ignoramuses and other assorted mindless twits, half of whom are women (because – as Jr. had asserted at the time of their appointment – “it’s 2015”)!

    But what I find to be equally disturbing is that politicians whom I once admired (e.g. the now retired but very eloquent Stephen Lewis) have jumped onto the inanity bandwagon, including – of course – the “climate change is the greatest threat …” mantra. Lewis has even gone so far as to endorse the ludicrous LEAP manifesto, written and flogged by his daughter-in-law and her eco-pals.

    All of which certainly makes me glad that my ex and I didn’t have any offspring! But I do despair for the future of my nieces and great-nephews. They all reside in Ontario … which, back in my days there, used to be “a place to stand and a place to grow”. But, alas, that was long, long ago and (now) far away.

    I suspect that the tide will eventually turn, as it always has. But, from my current vantage point as a “senior citizen” of this once great country, I have some doubts as to whether or not I shall live to see that day.

    ***************

    The above is actually a comment by Hilary Ostrov, whose comments here are black holing (and not into the spam bin either). If anyone else is having the same problem, please let me know on twitter using the name @thepointmans.

    STOP PRESS – for some reason WP is diverting some comments directly into the trash bin. I’ll add fishing them out to my todo list LOL.

    Pointy

  7. Blackswan says:

    Pointman,

    So often we hear of Third World corruption in Africa, Southeast Asia or South America, but such corruption was learned at the knee of their colonial masters … they just made an art form of it.

    Current politics of the West has revealed the true level of political and economic bastardry rising to new heights. Even a complicit Media can’t hide the truth from the average person.

    Joe Average knows he’s been taken for a ride, been treated with contempt by a greedy, grasping Political Elite and he’s desperate for someone, anyone, to level with him – to tell him the truth, to tell him how to help repair the terminal damage to his country’s and his children’s future safety and wellbeing.

    Trump is telling them what they need to hear, and they love him for it.

    The rest of us are searching for a Trump of our own – and coming up short, very short.

    Even the most apathetic couch potato can suddenly see that ‘politics’ matters – that there are forces beyond his ken that are shaping his way of life, how he lives it, and with whom.

    2016/2017 is shaping up to be pivotal in determining whether Joe’s voice will be heard, or whether vote-rigging, corruption and the looting of our nations’ Treasuries will continue unabated.

    If the Black Hats prevail, I suspect there aren’t enough pitchforks or lamp-posts for Joe and Josephine Average to exact their revenge.

  8. meltemian says:

    Sorry I’ve been a bit absent recently, Mr M’s health problems have been taking centre stage. Treatment is now under way and we hope for the best.

    I believe people everywhere are just beginning to see political parties for what they are, and they don’t like it one little bit!
    I hope, once we’ve removed the UK from the corrupt, bureaucratic, unaccountable auspices of the EU (I live in hope) we can get the country back to basics. The Harrogate Agenda’s Six Demands would be a great start.

    http://harrogateagenda.org.uk/

    Wishful thinking maybe, but we have to start somewhere…….

  9. JohnTyler says:

    “…………………. and if you’re black, you’ll probably have to restrain yourself from smashing the screen……………………”

    Pointman:

    You erred in making this statement in your otherwise excellent write-up.

    Rest assured that Hillary will get 95% of the black vote in the upcoming elections, regardless of her racist, demeaning vocalization of southern blacks.
    You can hear the cheering and approval from her all-black crowd as she put on her (horrid) black-face vocal inflexions and mannerisms; they just thought it was great.

    Don’t be surprised if we next see Hillary in full black face singing Mammy and munching on fried chicken and watermelon after preparing some Aunt Jemima “Sho’ Sets Folks Singin” pancakes; blacks will just love it and further come out in droves to vote for her.

    You forgot that a liberal progressive , socialist, democrat ( but I repeat myself) is, by definition incapable of any racist remarks or actions; ONLY non-progressives can be racist , even if they are black (in which case, they are no longer considered black, but are now “Uncle Toms;” “Oreo Cookies,” etc.)

  10. NZPete says:

    “…would be right on the extreme edge of his performance envelope with anything more challenging leaving him drowning in the shallow end of the pool.”
    You have a way with words that is frequently delightful!
    This was a *most* interesting read, given that I’ve been following very closely, for the first time ever, the current POTUS campaign taking place in the good ol’ US of A.

    • Pointman says:

      It looks like Trump has taken the Indiana primary big time, which makes him the GOP candidate, whether they like it or not. Standby for some fireworks.

      Pointman

      • Graeme No.3 says:

        Both Cruz and Kasich have suspended their campaigns. With a free run Trump should sew up the number of delegates necessary for election on the first ballot.
        Hilary should win the Democrat nomination

  11. Pointman says:

    For a friend, on the occasion of their birthday.

    .

    Cyber space sprawls high and deep, chaos rules and little abides,

    Its mountains towering and clean, its troughs full of sly creatures unseen.

    We glide above it silently, like ghostly cranes under a petrified moon,

    And yet leave gossamer trails across the divides.

    .

    We see each other from afar, and circling in, alight upon a peak.

    From there, we watch the valley floor and speak,

    Of anything and everything and nothing much at all,

    Perched above the busy madness and far beyond its thrall.

    .

    We laugh and jest, and oft exchange our own dark music.

    The shriek an eagle made as it soared up defiantly into the very face of God,

    And the dried twig snap of a heart, breaking alone in the wilderness.

    These things, and much between, we’ve seen.

    .

    And yet through all, we need no peak to meet.

    However distant, we are each others abiding rock.

    Friendship, I care not what Christ or the Gods portend,

    Will always be ours in the end.

    .

    Perhaps I haven’t said it, but make the time to say it now.

    Thank you for being such a friend.

    .

    Pointman

  12. NZPete says:

    Here is another interesting analysis that you good folk may enjoy:
    https://zeroanthropology.net/2016/05/04/why-donald-j-trump-will-be-the-next-president-of-the-united-states/
    “Why Donald J. Trump Will Be the Next President of the United States”
    -P.

    • Blackswan says:

      Wow Pete, that’s the most excoriating description of Hillarious I’ve seen yet ……

      “When immigrants came to the US in pursuit of the “American Dream,” who would they imagine as the better embodiment of that dream?

      A) The small, spiteful, neckless old lady with the cruel face and the mysterious coats that appear to be hiding large urine bags (or a colostomy bag), someone with the kindness of a prison warden and a grating cackle that is a searing assault on every image of Cinderella and Snow White? Or,

      B) The gleaming skyscraper, the golden luxury suite housing the square-faced, golden-haired mountain of Grade A Beef in a $10,000 suit standing under a chandelier that looks like glinting diamonds in sparkling champagne, who is otherwise soaring through the skies in his own massive jet?

      If you are answering (a), then you do not understand the United States.”

      And yes, I did enjoy reading such an interesting perspective, but nowhere did the author mention the Damocles Sword of felony prosecution hanging precariously over the necks of Bonnie & Clyde Clinton.

      • Graeme No.3 says:

        What a disaster for Hilary if Obama dropped the curtain just before the Convention. Bernie or some outsider? It is hardly a secret that Obama doesn’t like Hilary, and if he figures she will lose then he may want to “preserve his legacy” with someone more to his thinking.

      • Blackswan says:

        Interesting thought G3 – so is this …..

        “As for Hillary: She was, absolutely, cracked, hacked, bagged and tagged. Doesn’t matter if there are additional emails of merit found, the 2000 already identified are enough. She was deliberately using a private server for State Department Classified communications (born classified, so no marking needed). IF she is not indicted, you can know, for certain, that the F.B.I. and all of the Justice Department are frauds and exist only to provide political cover. It really is that existential. Either they “do their jobs”, and the extant facts clearly show Hillary is a criminal; or they are derelict in duty and fraudulent in action. If elected, she is not a valid President, since Felony is not a proper qualification.”

        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/guccifer-why-hillary-is-toast/

  13. NZPete says:

    Chiefio is another guy whose blog posts make interesting reading. I try to check in to his blog site regularly. He’s a clever guy with a lot of IT nous with whom I often agree.
    I came to Pointman via a JoNova blog comment way back when he wrote on his take of the Climategate “leaker”, and that was a revelation. There are so many great writers out there; gives me hope when I check the MSM and see what a vacuous lot they are in general.

    • Blackswan says:

      An Australian journalist once told me that they write for readers with the comprehension and perception of the average twelve year old. Anything more complex is a waste of time.

      It seems to me that it’s the average (very average) journalist who struggles to have the capacity to write as a twelve year does.

      Blog hosts clearly have more respect for their readership. We know this one certainly does.

  14. gallopingcamel says:

    Since leaving the UK 35 years ago my understanding of British politics faded away but your analysis rings true. Then you switched your focus to US politics.

    “In America, after eight years of a basically stagnant economy, a disastrous foreign policy that’s reduced the USA to a laughing stock around the world and no sign of improvement in sight, it’d be time to let the Republicans in again, even though they’re indistinguishable from the Democrats – they’re all perceived as Washington beltway high-end glitterati trash anyway.”

    It would be hard to make a better summary of what most of us little people in the USA think. We have no respect for Republicans or Democrats. I voted for (write in candidate) Boris Johnson in the last three presidential elections. My wife voted for Salvador Uribe.

    Finally there is a candidate who is promising things the little people care about:
    1. Enforce US immigration laws and secure our borders
    2. Return control of K-12 schools to the local community

    Issues like these energise voters like me, so in this election the turnout will be far above the abysmal ~40% level in recent contests. That makes it unlikely that recent polls mean anything. Expect Trump to win in a Reagan style landslide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: