I know articles like this upset my more right-winged readership, but my job here is to convey to you how the world really is, based on the available empirical facts and evidence, rather than how you think the world should be.
When leftists say irrational shit, I call them out on it. Back in 2012, when they were all screaming that Obama “kicked Romney’s ass,” I had to correct them by saying Obama barely won; he literally beat Romney by less than one percent in three states. That’s not kicking anyone’s ass, liberals.
So when conservatives say irrational shit, I will call them out on it too. That will be today.
When Trump was elected, I made the prediction that 10 years from now:
1. The US will have even more debt, both governmental and private (unless Trump somehow defaults on US debt).
2. The US federal government will be spending even more money.
3. The US economy will not be improved significantly from 2016 levels.
4. The flood of incoming third world immigrants will continue at more or less current rate and they will continue to receive taxpayer funded government services.
In other words, in the long run, Trump won’t make any positive difference in the biggest areas the right and alt-right are excited about (and me as well).
The assumption of many conservatives and Republicans is that because Trump has been elected president (and also because of Brexit, and perhaps the recent no vote in the Italian referendum), the Western world has now suddenly shifted from the left to the right, and now right-wingers will steer society.
This is incorrect. The US and Europe are still left-wing societies that will continue to move further left over the next several decades. Because of this, Trump not only can’t (and/or won’t) stop it, but he’ll barely put a dent in it.
Here’s some hard, empirical evidence that backs up what I’m saying:
1. Trump got around the same number of votes as Romney and McCain. Trump got 62.3 million votes, Romney got 60.9, McCain got 59.9. There was no massive upswing of right-wing voters who never voted for the establishment and were rising to take their country back. The people who voted for Trump were, by and large, the same Republicans and right-leaning folks who voted for the last two establishment Republican candidates.
2. The Lizard Queen got fewer votes than Obama, across all demographics the Democrats pander to:
– 54% of women voted for Hillary, 55% voted for Obama
– 55% of young people (under 30) voted for Hillary, 60% voted for Obama (this alone likely explains why Trump got Florida and Pennsylvania; states he absolutely needed in order to win)
– 88% of blacks voted for Hillary, 93% voted for Obama
– 65% of Hispanics voted for Hillary, 71% voted for Obama
If you combine this with Trump’s Romney-like numbers, it means that Trump didn’t win the election because the right wing rose up and defeated the left. Instead, the right wing did what it always did and the left wing was so disgusted by Hillary that many of them stayed home.
I actually predicated that aspect incorrectly. I’ve never seen the left do this. I’ve talked before how the left tends to mobilize in ways the right usually does not. This time around, Hillary was such a terrible candidate that the trend broke. The Lizard Queen was seriously the worst candidate that the Democratic Party has run since perhaps Walter Mondale back in 1984. That means you have to go back 32 years to find a candidate that might have been worse than Hillary. (Honestly, what the fuck were you Democrats thinking, voting for this monster? Idiots.)
3. As the left-wing media keeps screaming, Trump lost the popular vote. Over 2.5 million more voters voted for Hillary than for Trump. That’s not a small number. It’s true that as a percentage of votes, it’s not huge. It’s also true that our electoral system is so corrupt and inaccurate that we don’t really know what the “popular vote” actually represents. Regardless, given these results, you have a tough case to make if you are saying that America is turning back to the right when the fucking Lizard Queen got more votes than Trump.
4. Trump was at a 60 unfavorable rating on Election Day. This is, by far, the highest negative rating of any elected president on that day in recorded history. Tell me again how America has experienced a conservative revolution?
5. Trump got 302 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot, but it isn’t. Regan got 525 in 1984, and 485 in 1980. Even George H.W. Bush (the elder) got a staggering 426 votes in 1988. Once again, I don’t see a right-wing revolution here.
6. I saved the most important for last. Trump got 74 more electoral votes than Hillary. Again, that sounds impressive until you dig into the numbers and look at how he won those 74.
He won Florida (29 votes) by just 1.3%. He won Pennsylvania (20) by 1.1%. He won both Wisconsin (10) and Michigan (16) by under 1%. There’s your 75 votes.
So just like Obama barely squeaked a victory over Romney in 2012, Trump barely squeaked a victory over one of the worst Democrat candidates in history by 1.5% or less, in just four states.
Nothing in America has changed, my conservative friends. We have not moved to the right. Hey, if America was truly moving to a smaller government mindset, no one would be happier than me, but that just isn’t the case. Calm your emotions and look at the facts. The US is still a near 50/50 divided nation that leans heavily left. These numbers clearly show this. Moreover, they also indicate that Trump would likely have lost to just about any other Democrat candidate, including Bernie Sanders.
Think about that.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Leave your comment below, but be sure to follow the Five Simple Rules.
Shura
Posted at 07:03 am, 12th December 2016I’m not sure about Sander’s victory. Come Election Day, I can’t fathom anyone voting for a 76-year-old man. That’s why I always found Ron Paul’s insistence on getting the spotlight counter-productive in 2012, when he was well into the 70s.
We’re gonna have fun, stop trying to be right. 🙂 For starters, he is changing perception on Climate Change. If he removes fear of the future from Western society he will have done enough in my opinion.
Gil Galad
Posted at 08:48 am, 12th December 2016I can’t fathom why Americans in particular have this thing against climate change. Global warming denial is actually a minus to add to Trump’s list, not a plus. I can understand when a Christian american denies climate change, because it’s a religious trope that humanity shouldn’t modify its behavior to protect the Earth, since the Earth is supposed to be God’s gift to it, to do with as it pleases. But when *secular* Americans deny climate change, I’m just puzzled.
It’s all good and well to claim that the whole thing is a leftist conspiracy to have more globalism and government control, but the simplest internet search shows you that the very plural roots of climate change science are far from having emerged in a homogeneous left wing atmosphere. Global warming conspirationism is as absurd – because it relies on the same argumentative mechanisms – as moon landing conspirationism.
Maybe it isn’t as severe as they say, maybe it isn’t as exclusively human-made as they say, but the idea that billions of tons of carbon diffused every year can’t warm the Earth is as ludicrous as they get. You will trust a scientist with everything in your life from vaccines to getting us to control fusion soon, but for global warming ? nah, we don’t trust them. Reminiscent of creationism. Thank god solar power is projected to grow exponentially and possibly solve the problem by itself without the need to change the prejudices of misguided rightwingers.
bluegreenguitar
Posted at 10:48 am, 12th December 2016Would be interested in what people’s takes are on global warming and climate change? And what sources they are using to come to those conclusions?
I see some discussion at https://calebjonesblog.com/the-environment/ but maybe I am missing other posts.
I terms of what 2020 and/or 2024 hold:
1. The US will have even more debt, both governmental and private (unless Trump somehow defaults on US debt).
2. The US federal government will be spending even more money.
Sadly, most likely. But will the amount of deficit spending increase or decrease from it’s current level?
3. The US economy will not be improved significantly from 2016 levels.
This may be so, barring some major technological leaps like in the late 90s. I actually think the economy might “improve slightly”, but that is mostly optimistic thinking and I haven’t researched the subject enough. Inflation, international instability, public overspending, too much consumer debt, poorly-chosen regulations and investments, and the potential falling levels of health may continue to hold back potential growth.
4. The flood of incoming third world immigrants will continue at more or less current rate and they will continue to receive taxpayer funded government services.
Most likely, though possibly slowed somewhat until it becomes clear what the Trump presidency means for immigration.
Though important, I personally don’t think immigration is as big an issue as debt, overspending, social security, the environment, business climate, welfare, international policies, etc. (What’s important is continuing to encourage highly-talented, well-trained and hard-working people to move to US and contribute.)
But immigration is a current hot button topic for many people, (and might be using as a distraction technique from more important issues). I think that one of the best ways to improve the situation would be to have an entrance fee, i.e. immigration tariff. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_tariff and https://cei.org/onpoint/conservative-case-immigration-tariffs for examples. I know it probably won’t happen, but it’s nice to think there might be a fairly straight-forward solution.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 11:02 am, 12th December 2016Sanders had no chance of winning in the primaries, as I’ve said before. He was four years too early.
In terms of the general election, I’m not sure either, since I can’t trust polls anymore. My overall point is that his prospects in the general looked way too good for people to argue that America has turned back to the right.
I agree. Talk about someone with no chance of winning!
Hard to say. Probably. But hard to predict. The greater point is that it doesn’t matter if the deficit is $1 trillion or $800 billion or $1.5 trillion. The US is fucked in any of these scenarios.
That. It’s a distraction technique. The more SJWs and Alt-Righters scream about immigration, the less they’re talking about more important issues like how much debt we’re incurring or what the Federal Reserve is doing.
I’m sure the guys at Goldman Sachs are loving all this immigration anger.
Gil Galad
Posted at 11:26 am, 12th December 2016CJ, will you make a post on the likelihood of WWIII (or similar, whether it’s nuclear or conventional) ? Even if you put it in the 2%, would be interesting to hear your take. I’m almost clueless with international geopolitics, lol.
One of the things that worry me is the AI arms race. If China wins that one, we’re in trouble.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 11:48 am, 12th December 2016I indeed put it at under 2%. A truly escalated World War is extremely unlikely, regardless of the future scenario. The world today is far too small and interconnected for anything like that to happen. Just think about it; how the hell would the US and China ever go to war with each other WWII style? Not going to happen.
Instead, we’ll have have constant, never-ending mini wars, civil wars, cyber warfare, regional wars, proxy wars, and cold wars. But no World War.
LionKing
Posted at 06:14 pm, 12th December 2016I also think WWII style global war will not happen. The biggest players would not have much to gain, plus how long do you think it would take the “big boys” to deploy their hottest toys (= nuclear) and annihilate the whole planet?
There are those who believe full-on WWIII is already happening. Just that it is not fought with guns (except for some of the local conflicts, which are part of divide and conquer game). It is fought on financial markets. The winners are the people who own more and more of the world (=20 or so richest families), losers all the rest of us.
I guess someone should apply “follow the money” rule here. US debt is rising. EU debt is rising. Surely it is not just China who owns this debt, it must be the private sector? Corporations own more and more of the essential stuff. Crops (think Monsanto + Bayer), water (think Nestle). A day when air will no longer be free might not be far…
And who is behind all the corporations, banks, funds, the Fed, etc.? Physical persons, the real owners/rulers of the world.
Now don’t get me wrong; I don’t consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist. I present the view above to open the discussion since I believe the probability of something like this going on is much more then 0%.
Jon Smith
Posted at 06:18 am, 13th December 2016As it turns out the prediction made on this blog “Hilary will most likely win and all of the Bernie Sanders supporters will turn towards (and elect) the Lizard queen” turned out to be untrue. That is actually a very important prediction that did not manifest into reality. Yes, Hilary was worse then many people thought in the beginning but alternatively Tump was just a little bit more charismatic then people thought in the beginning as well. The big take away here (for me anyway) is that Trump did a huge end run around the media with all of those rallies he did. That was an interesting tactic that goes back to the old days of campaigning that I foresee will become a model for future candidates in years to come ( if Trump does an even remotely decent job that is). I think that it is likely (at this point anyway) that he will do a remotely decent job.
I don’t think it is a matter of “how much he won vs other Republican candidates” I think it’s more about the fact that he did slightly better then they did despite all the things that he said that were A. deeply offensive to liberals and B. despite a constant Clinton driven smear campaign by the media.
I think it is obvious that the Unites States has not suddenly become more conservative. But I do think that it has momentarily become more Nationalistic as opposed to Globalist. Regardless of ones own personal belief system, I think history teaches clearly us that (A) nothing lasts forever (B) Nationalism tends to lead to nation building and (C) Globalism tend to lead to the slow wearing away of a nations power and identity. So Trump or no Trump, what we might be seeing is a temporary upswing in a nationalist agenda that may (temporarily) curtail the slow phasing out of western civilization in favor of an all inclusive globalist agenda.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 09:33 am, 13th December 2016Yes, I already said that in the article.
If the argument is that America has moved to the right, then that’s exactly what the matter is about.
He accomplished those things largely because Clinton was such a horrible candidate, on a historic level. And yes, he’s also and extremely good marketer. But that has nothing to do with people moving from the left to the right.
To me that’s the same thing, emphasis on your word “momentarily.” The overall direction of the US/Europe will not change.
Shura
Posted at 02:24 pm, 13th December 2016[quote]Thank god solar power is projected to grow exponentially and possibly solve the problem by itself without the need to change the prejudices of misguided rightwingers.[/quote]You just defeated yourself with this last sentence. Global enviromentalists are just merchants of fear, no different from goldbugs. Back in the 60’s overpopulation was all the rage. In “Soylent Green” many people sleep on staircases! Even if the problem wasn’t realized because many people tried to have less children, which is debatable, we’re more than double the people now yet we all have a home. It’s the prejudices of misguided rightwingers that made it possible, by embracing progress. And what’s more, they did it the good way: fearlessly.
Gil Galad
Posted at 03:47 pm, 13th December 2016@Shura: literally none of what you said addresses my argument. Maybe I should break it down ?
1° When you have ideological reasons – even good ones – to want something to be false, you tend to be biased against it. GW denialists are a textbook case. Prove that you are objective by making your position subject to refutation: tell me what evidence and from whom would change your mind and make acknowledge GW.
2° Global conspiracies involving scientific lies are really, really hard to pull off. The Soviets tried it at their country’s scale with stuff like Lyssenko’s absurd agricultural “science”, and they needed a degree of totalitarianism much greater than the worst we have now in order to make it temporarily work. Doing this with global warming would requires that SINCE THE 1890s, everything concerning greenhouse effects etc has been fabricated/distorted to sell us a lie. The means to do this just aren’t there, nor is there the world-scale ideological motivation (which would need to have started *very* early and be coordinated). GW denialism fails for the same reasons moon landing denialism and creationism fail: the required conspiracy is too big to have possibly worked.
3° It looks like we’ve been dodging all the alarmist predictions, not because they’re all wrong, but because technology keeps successfully increasing the Earth’s carrying capacity. The Earth could only carry a few million hunter-gatherers, but it could carry a hundred million farmers, and if we develop fusion and arcologies we might get its capacity to a trillion people. This isn’t some metaphysical necessity we’re supposed to blindly trust in: either we succeed in continuing the trend, or we don’t and we collapse. The importance of renewables and fusion is that *if* they develop fast enough, we might not even need to convince people like you. The downside being that once your ass is saved, you’ll use that to claim that we were never in danger and that all you need is “fearlessness” and the dumb certitude that everything’s gonna be ok.
Jon Smith
Posted at 05:37 am, 14th December 2016Caleb Jones, you may have already said it in this blog but my point is that particular prediction not manifesting into reality is especially important. When I first read it, I was very interesting in the outcome. Millennials by nature tend to be low motivation, ADD, entitled and angry little things. The new term coming up is the “cupcake” generation (apply named I think). To me, these qualities meant that should the “I’ll give you free stuff” Bernie Sander’s group fail allot of them would just stay home and not bother. This would be especially true if they were angered in anyway. Entitled little cupcakes hold grudges and do not handle their reality being questioned very well. So they would just stay home. Enough of them did to cost Clinton the election. This is significant because it reflects how one interprets and in turn understands the fundamental behaviorism of said generation.
My argument is not that America has moved to the right. Not in actuality anyway. But I think that allot of people are excited about pretending to. Hearing Merry Christmas again may seem refreshing. Rebelling against some of the socialist, liberal, democratic rhetoric that is constantly being shoved in their faces may seem refreshing. But these same people are not going to suddenly go home, go to church, stay married and have conventional families with conventional morals. So you are correct. America has most definitely not moved further to the right, they are just excited about rebelling against the to far left for the time being.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 10:48 am, 14th December 2016That is exactly my point here. People are getting excited about an illusion. These same people are going to be furious when Trump shows them how much of an elite he really is (notice his cabinet picks.)
This constant obsession Americans have of looking for a savoir and then being disappointed later (Obama, Sanders, Trump) is one of the biggest reasons America is headed for a collapse and why I have to move to another country.
It would be nice if Americans could snap out of this insanity, but I know they won’t. So I’m out.