Search Results

Keyword: ‘Why Hillary Clinton is Losing in Polls to Donald Trump’

Why Hillary Clinton is Losing in Polls to Donald Trump: 3

October 6, 2016 10 comments

In the second post of this series, I put forth the idea that a significant part of popular support for Trump’s candidacy is a reaction to the almost unanimous support of HRC by establishment elites and their upper-middle class enablers. It is no secret that a rapidly growing majority of the population has lost faith in the competence and ability of establishment elites and their flunkies (aka “credentialed experts and Professionals”) to keep the system from imploding on itself. As some of you might know, this issue has been the subject of many posts on this blog- including some of the first ones I wrote in 2010.

It is also no secret that the establishment media and “objective credentialed experts” are trying very hard to persuade people to not vote for Trump.. and it is not working. But why is that the case? Why are most people ignoring the constant stream of distortions, lies and scams put forth by the mainstream media, “celebrities” and “credentialed experts”? Why did people appear to trust and believe them in the past but now ignore them? What makes people today so much less likely to believe in what “opinion leaders”, “celebrities” and “public intellectuals” say? While I have covered some of the interlocking reasons for the now irreversible decline in public opinion about them in previous posts, there are a few issues especially relevant to the rise of Trump that could use some more illumination.

hrc-not-50-points-ahead-01

About 2-3 weeks ago, an angry HRC asked “Why am I not 50 points ahead?” during a televised interview. While that rhetorical question has since become a subject of much amusement to people throughout the country, I believe that an honest answer to that question highlights one of the major problems facing establishment elite in the USA- and indeed throughout the west. As many of you probably know, the mainstream media and “public intellectuals” blame everything from sexism to her multi-decade presence in national politics for her unpopularity. However the surprise and frustration expressed by HRC in that interview has far deeper roots than mere unpopularity. The question she is really asking is as follows- Why are so people willing to trust a political novice like Trump over a “credentialed expert” like her?

The answer to that question goes something like this.. “credentials” and “experience” are, at best, proxy markers for real-life ability and competence.

Let me illustrate that point with a couple of examples. Consider a population which believes that their health-care system is the “best” in the world because it looks, sounds and feels impressive and “professional”. Most readers will immediately realize that the way a system looks, sounds and feels has no real link to it being excellent or even good. But let us imagine that the population of said country is delusional or stupid enough to buy such associations and lacks an external frame of reference to suspect otherwise. Now ask yourself- How long can this charade continue without the population openly losing faith in the system and its “credentialed professionals”? Based on my observations about the healthcare system in USA, repeated negative experiences with the system are the single biggest contributor to loss of faith in it. While external reference frames and decentralized flow of information definitely speed up the process, personal experiences are by far the largest and most powerful drivers for loss of faith in any given system.

Another example of this phenomenon can be seen in the generally negative perception of corporations capitalism among the under-40 age group in USA. Many “public intellectuals” believe that such perceptions in that age group has to do with them being entitled or spoiled. But as we know, it is the “public intellectuals” who are full of shit. Baby boomers (and older generations) have a more positive perception of corporations and capitalism largely because both appeared to largely deliver on their promises at some point in their lives (mostly between 1950s-1970s). In contrast to that- neither of the two have delivered anything about stagnation, misery and precariousness to anyone born after the very early 1970s. Consequently propaganda, regardless of scale or extent, is incapable of making most non-retarded people born after 1970 see corporations and capitalism in positive terms.

The willingness to vote for a political novice like Trump over a “credentialed” system insider like HRC in 2016 is, therefore, largely a consequence of many tens of millions of people having had multiple and sustained negative experiences with voting for the political status quo. To put it another way, no amount of hand wringing and scare mongering by the elites and their enablers will change the actual levels of popular support for Trump’s presidential campaign.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Hillary Clinton is Losing in Polls to Donald Trump: 2

September 25, 2016 4 comments

In the previous post of this series, I put forth the idea that HRC’s continued downward slide in polls against Trump is largely due to unanimous support of her candidacy by elites and their upper-middle class enablers. I also mentioned that widespread loss of public faith in elites and their flunkies is not unique to USA and infact is one of the major trends that has arisen throughout the west in the previous decade. You might remember that I first predicted the rise of Donald Trump in a post on Aug 31, 2015– when the vast majority of journalists, talking heads and other elite flunkies thought it was a joke or a ploy to get a new reality show. I also subsequently wrote more than a few posts about the factors that have made Donald Trump’s remarkable success possible.

And all of this brings us the inevitable question- Why is HRC such a remarkably unpopular politician? While more than a few of you will list a litany of reasons behind her lack of popularity, a close look at her public record and persona make her lack of popularity kinda odd. There is nothing about her public record or persona that makes her especially despicable compared to your average successful establishment politician in USA or anywhere else in the west. She is certainly not any more slimy or corrupt than other big name politicians such as Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Bush43, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio.. well you get the picture. She also compares very favorably to hucksters like Ted Cruz and pretty much any other republican governor.

538-sep-24-2016-01

By all counts, her nomination as the democratic candidate and subsequent win in the presidential election should have been ridiculously easy. But as many of you remember, it has anything but easy for her to win the democratic primary against Bernie Sanders, a 74-year old independent senator from Vermont. Infact the DNC had to rig the entire primary process for her to “win” the democratic nomination. It is also noteworthy that Bernie Sanders was able to raise almost 250 million dollars in small donations from democrats and independents in order to campaign against HRC. So why were democrats and democrat-leaning independents willing to put so much money and energy to stop the coronation of a candidate who was not that much worse than other establishment democrat politicians and, at least on paper, much better than establishment republican politicians.

The establishment narrative and explanation for the remarkable fragility of her presidential campaign is based on the idea that people hate her because she is a woman. But is that really the case? Is her gender anything more than peripherally involved in her remarkable unpopularity among the democratic base and democratic-leaning voters? I should also point out that she was not always seen as an especially corrupt and dishonest politician. As late as 2008, she was seen as a very viable if moderately flawed candidate for the presidency. She also had far lower negative ratings during the 2008 democratic campaign than she has now. So what happened in the intervening 8 years? How did a reasonably well-regarded and fairly popular politician become somebody with extremely high negative ratings?

So, what changed?

Let us start by talking about what has NOT changed since 2008. HRC, you see, has not changed since 2008.. 2000.. 1996.. 1992.. who knows. She is acting like an establishment politician was supposed to in the early-1990s to early-2000s timespan. Her executive style and worldview are also deeply rooted in the late-1980s-early-2000s era when it was cool and very profitable to be an establishment neoliberal. Infact for most of the 1990s, many in the west seriously believed that neoliberalism was the only way. Moreover, the relative peace and high growth rates enjoyed by people in the 1990s (especially in the USA) were able to paper over the many systemic flaws and defects of that ideology. The first large-scale problems with the neoliberal status quo (9/11, Invasion of Iraq etc) only started becoming obvious in the early 2000s, but a credit and real-estate bubble was able to keep the lid on things till 2008.

But that by itself was not sufficient to make HRC, and others like her, so unpopular. I believe it was the response of the establishment (specifically the government) in USA to the 2008 financial crisis that put the proverbial ‘nail in the coffin’ for popularity of neoliberal politicians. As many of you know, Obama (and the democrats) promised a lot of reform in legally deniable language during the 2008 presidential campaign. We all know how that worked out for the 90-99%. The government in USA (and other western countries) used the 2008 financial crisis to bail out their financial backers and transfer the costs of doing so on everybody else. The post-2008 era has also seen corporations using “laws” and “rules” to speed up the financialization-driven exploitation of people in areas that were traditionally regulated or moderated to prevent that outcome. Furthermore, they also sped up the rate of replacing well-paying with low-paying precarious jobs often with no benefits- all thanks to various secret “free trade” treaties.

Consequently most people in USA (and other western countries) have increasingly come to view establishment politicians as irredeemable and incompetent liars who are incapable of improving the lives of the vast majority of those who voted them into office. While the public image of politicians throughout history has always been a bit sketchy, their voters did expect them to.. for the lack of a better expression.. not piss on them. Which brings us to the most important reason behind Hillary Clinton’s abyssal favorability ratings. Most voters, you see, expect her to renege on every single promise she made about making their lives better. They expect her to work only for her extremely rich donors (domestic and foreign) and further enrich them while pauperizing everybody else. It does not help that her lawyerly parsing of words, or as I call it “anodyne” communication, is now seen as one of the main indicators of systemic and irredeemable dishonesty.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Hillary Clinton is Losing in Polls to Donald Trump: 1

September 24, 2016 7 comments

One of the more interesting aspects of the 2016 presidential election is that Donald Trump is now either very close to Hillary Clinton, or beating her in battleground “swing”states, in multiple recent polls. Hillary’s widespread slide in poll numbers in September has caused much consternation and hand-wringing among establishment democrats and their financiers- not to mention many white middle-aged women with desk jobs living in coastal cities. The HRC campaign has been in full panic mode since the first week of September.. and that was before her collapse at the 9/11 memorial service. Her campaign is now trying desperate tactics such as sending the cast of the preachy “west wing” TV to campaign for her in Ohio, more pathetic attempts to appeal to hip millennials and appearing with Zach Galifianakis on ‘Between Two Ferns’.

Many democrat faithfuls are now openly starting to wonder why Hillary Clinton is almost tied in multiple polls with Donald Trump in late September, especially after supposedly besting him by 8-10% percentage points barely a month ago. I mean.. how can an intelligent woman with such a long history of “public service” and “policy experience” lose against a person who, in their eyes, has more in common with your used car salesman alcoholic uncle than anything approaching “presidential material”. Hillary’s supporters in the media, who are legion, have spent much effort trying to find factors for her seemingly irresistible downward slide in the polls. They have so far identified a number of potential culprits ranging from millennial idealism, Bernie Sanders, the low intelligence of the average american voter, white racism… you get the picture.

Now, I do not deny that some of these factors have had a negative impact on her poll numbers. It is however clear to me that her downward slide has occurred despite her campaign and supporters spending almost 250 million dollars (to date) on media ads against Donald Trump. It has also occurred despite HRC having almost unanimous support from the media in her campaigns attempt to denigrate Trump and simultaneously minimize the spread of negative information about her. In other words- massive amounts of negative advertising directed at her opponent AND the unanimous support of elites, mainstream media and pretty much every semi-famous person in good standing with the ‘system’ has not helped her poll numbers. Infact, this very high level of establishment support seems to have had a negative effect on her standing vis-a-vis Donald Trump.

538-sep-24-2016-02

But why is this happening? Isn’t the USA full of conformist people who blindly follow authority while pretending to be rebellious and individualists? Shouldn’t all these highly paid pundits, opinion manipulators, focus group experts and other assorted credentialed assholes be able to sell HRC to the american public- especially when the other option is supposedly a used car salesman who was lucky enough to be born to rich parents? And to be fair, while Trump has plenty of street smarts and media savvy- he isn’t exactly the brightest bulb in the room. Why are so many people willing to give Trump a chance? Conventional theories about the popularity of, and momentum behind, Trump are based on one or more of three core beliefs: 1] His supporters and perhaps half of the american electorate are racist and stupid- aka the “basket of deplorables” 2] HRC is a really bad candidate for the presidency, especially at a time when establishment types have become unpopular throughout the west. 3] Trump is a master psychological manipulator – aka the Scott Adams theory.

Personally, I think that Trump’s popularity is partly due to a combination of 1] and 2] plus economic insecurity. However the major part of Trump’s successes is due to a much larger phenomenon that has to do with general loss of trust in institutions and professionals both public and private that has been going on for previous two decades. This trend was barely perceptible even in the late-1990s, and it started becoming obvious only in the early-2000s. However, even then, it was not exactly a major trend. It started accelerating around 2005-2006 and has now become one of the dominant trends of our times. While there are many reasons for its acceleration and spread, especially the growth of the internet, the single biggest factor propelling its growth is that people can no longer ignore evidence that western elite are incompetent, fraudulent, malicious and supremely corrupt.

It does not take a genius to figure out supposedly useful, objective and trustworthy institutions from universities and schools to hospitals and large corporations are run by people who are incompetent, short-sighted and frequently malicious. Similarly it is obvious that supposedly respectable professions from teachers, professors, doctors to people running non-profits and governments are full of barely competent and incredibly greedy people- frequently with some version of the ‘god complex’. It is therefore no surprise that people distrust ideas and people supported by elites and their upper-middle class enablers. In other words, the waning of public support for HRC is mostly due to the fact that she is strongly supported by elites and their upper-middle class flunkies. The failure of her attempts to paint Trump as a dangerous idiot is largely due the fact that people simply do not care for the opinions of those they actively distrust.

What do you think? Comments?

2019 and 2020 Will be Much Bigger Shitshows than 2015 and 2016

May 30, 2019 14 comments

As regular readers know, I often make predictions on a number of topics which later turn out to be right (or pretty close) with a high rate of success. More importantly, I am able to accurately identify the underlying dynamics, trends and forces responsible for the ultimate outcomes. Now let me make another seemingly obvious prediction, but with far greater insight and details than possible for quacks.. I mean credentialed “experts”. My prediction is that 2019 and 2020 will be far larger and more problematic shitshows than 2015 and 2016. Some of you (MikeCA?) might argue that every day since the election of Trump has been a shitshow.. and that is technically sorta true. But if you think that 2017 and 2018 were shitshows, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

There are many reasons why this period of 1.5 years will be an epic meta-shitshow of the likes we haven’t witnessed in living memory. However, it is not simply the sheer number or magnitude of individual shitshows that will make this period memorable, but how one shitshow will feed into another and so on.. you know, synergy. But before we go there, let us talk about why 2015 and 2016 marked the beginning of our current era of shitshows. It all began with an orange Buffoon riding down a gaudy escalator alongside a trophy wife with a face pumped full of cosmetic Botox. Initially it seemed that his campaign for the republican presidential nomination was just another publicity stunt to obtain a larger payout from the reality show in which he was starring.

However it became obvious to me within 4-6 weeks that his outrageous and colorful persona had far more public support than effete Washington DC ‘insiders’ realized. And yes.. I never changed my opinion on that issue and turned out be right. And ya.. I also predicted he would win against Hillary in early 2016, even at times when even the most radical presstitues.. I mean journalists.. thought that HRC might somehow prevail against him on election day. I also explored the real reasons why HRC would lose to that buffoon– before the election took place. FYI- majority of my accurate predictions have been about issues and topics other than Trump. But enough about the orange buffoon. Let us now talk about Brexit- more precisely, why the ‘remain’ side lost.

MSM news outlets in that rapidly decaying country (UK) want you to believe that Brexit was due to the stupidity of poorly educated people in that country. However a simple look at the geography of that vote tells you all you need about Brexit. Long story short, post-2008 austerity measures in UK hit parts of the country that are not London pretty hard. People who live in those regions, aka most of that country, got progressively disillusioned with the shitty status quo. They expressed their discontent by voting against something which stood as a placeholder for the widely reviled status quo. You know.. just like people in the Mid-West finally got tired of Obama’s 8-year long lie about “Hope and Change” voted for Trump over the symbol of continuity aka HRC.

But both these shocks to the Establishment, their aftermath and colorful rhetoric accompanying both those changes are nothing compared to what we will witness in 2019 and 2020. While I will restrict my predictions to USA, things are also likely to get interesting in other parts of the world- maybe a bit too interesting. But before we go to the list, a word of caution. The most obvious reasons are unlikely to be the most consequential. The less glamorous reasons, further down the list, carry far more weight than the shiny but superficial ones which are obvious. So let us start by listing them in order of apparent obviousness.

1] Ever since Trump won the republican nomination in mid-2016, democratic establishment and deep state types have been trying to find enough dirt to stop his victory in the 2016 presidential election (which they failed) or impeach him. As things stand today, they have not uncovered anything more scandalous than Trump getting his disgraced lawyer to pay hush money to two women he had sex with while married to his current wife. While this revelation does provide fodder for supermarket tabloids, it is totally unsurprising and in line with Trump’s past behavior. More importantly, the Mueller investigation has not uncovered evidence of “collusion” between Trump and Russia or Putin. Nor has it shown any definitive evidence for obstruction of justice by Trump. And I know MikeCA will have something to say about my characterization of that report.

But these severe setbacks have not stopped an increasing number of democrats from demanding his impeachment, because face it.. they always knew he was “guilty” of something impeachable. Today, the patron saint of pro-impeachment brigade aka Robert Mueller came out and all but openly encouraged democrats to start the impeachment process, even though his report does not contain enough evidence to prosecute Trump for either “collusion” or obstruction of justice. And ya.. I am aware of the legalese bullshit about not being able to exonerate him- but let us get real, people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It also helps to be rich and white, but that is a topic for another post. My prediction is that democrats will initiate pre-impeachment proceedings against Trump, irrespective of potential negative effects it might have on their electoral prospects in 2020. But how does this translate into a nasty shitshow?

Well.. for a few reasons. Firstly, it is unlikely Trump will be impeached, tried and made to resign before November 3, 2020. Secondly, the pre-impeachment investigation is going to be long and highly contentious. It will also overshadow democratic primaries and possibly the presidential election to such an extent that other issues will be effectively sidelined. So be prepared for a democratic primary in which candidates offer endless paeans to bipartisanship, civility in politics, reestablishing “norms” and impeaching Trump at the expense of all the other stuff most voters in the general election actually care about. You know.. stuff like antitrust action against various monopolies and oligopolies, medicare for all, doing something about student debt etc. Think of HRCs “what will the children think” 2016 campaign on steroids. But in some ways, this will be smallest shitshow of them all.

2] Stupid old losers who constitute a majority of democratic primary voters in large states seem to be enamored by “gun control” aka banning civilian ownership of guns. Given that everyone in the packed clown car of democratic candidates is expected to appeal to them, one should expect increasingly shrill and strident anti-gun ownership rhetoric. While appealing to these losers might help one win the primary and a few coastal states in general, it is almost guaranteed to backfire in swing states- especially those with large rural and semi-urban populations. Now add in a few random mass shootings (almost inevitable?) between now and Nov 3, 2020 and you can imagine how nutty this could get. Expect the Democratic house to pass one or more atrociously written anti-gun ownership laws and a few high profile court cases.

To make matters worse, if that is possible, we have seen a recent trend by private corporate monopolies/ oligopolies based in heavily democratic states to deny services based on ideology. Here are a few recent examples.. Software Maker Salesforce Tells Gun Retailers to Stop Selling AR-15s, YouTube Alternatives for Gun Videos & Content Creators and Bank of America to Stop Financing Makers of Military-Style Guns. I, for one, don’t see how pissing off millions of well-armed and single-issue voters who live in gun-ownership friendly jurisdictions is a smart idea when your party has to win their votes in 2020. Then again, this is the same party which think that Joe Biden in 2020 would make the best general election candidate. Or maybe the Democrats don’t want to really win national elections. Who knows..

The large number of democratic candidates vying for the party nomination will make things even weirder than the republican field in 2016. We have all seen how small campaigns which use far less costly traditional advertising and advisers can prevail over larger “mainstream” operations. Between this and the proliferation of small donors, expect far more candidates to remain in the race even after the first major primaries are over. And the DNC and other party establishment are going to try hard, and ineffectually, to stop Bernie by hook or crook. Don’t be surprised if the 2020 democratic convention is held under even more acrimonious circumstances than 2016. And there will be anonymous leaks, just like last time. It is going to get real ugly by mid 2020.

3] Let us now turn to the less obvious, but far more consequential, trends which promise to make 2019 and 2020 the biggest shitshows in living memory. Long story short, we are due for at least three independent nasty blowbacks from Trump’s foreign and trade policies. Let us start by talking about Iran or more precisely how his stupid policy towards that country has the potential to backfire in a spectacularly disastrous manner. It is no secret that idiots such as Pompeo and Bolton, urged on by Zionists and Saudis, are trying to start a war. What they don’t understand, or are willing to understand, is that any war with Iran in addition being unwinnable would make the Iraq misadventure look like quaint in comparison. The outcome of such a war would include Iran finally developing nuclear weapons (perhaps with Chinese assistance), prolonged and massive oil shortages with resultant price hikes and many other bad long-term effects (on USA).

Moving on.. Kim Jon-un has repeatedly conveyed to USA that unless economic sanctions are at least partially removed by end of 2019, he will restart testing ICBMs. My guess is that DPRK will demonstrate an entirely solid-fueled ICBM in early 2020, unless Trump and the idiots running “foreign policy” in USA openly abandon the idea of DPRK giving up its nukes and ICBMS- because the later ain’t going to happen. Which means that sometime in 2020, Trump will have to decide on how to respond to new ICBM and perhaps even nuclear tests by DPRK. To make matters even more interesting, this escalation will likely occur around the same time as Iran is likely to finally leave the JCPOA and restart its uranium enrichment program at maximum capacity. But wait.. it gets even better, or worse, depending on your viewpoint.

As most of you know by now, Trump is involved in an unwinnable trade-war with China. And here is why.. China’s economy and manufacturing capacity is far larger than USA in real terms. While the american economy and system will implode without Chinese imports, the converse is not true. There is also no other country in the world that has as large, varied and sophisticated a manufacturing base as China. Did I mention that USA and rest of the “West” are economically stagnant, demand saturated and in overall decline. China is not going to compromise on Huawei, give in to demands of american corporations or basically change anything significant about how it works or does business. It is the USA and rest of “West” that will have to ultimately eat crow. And they will start hurting USA by screwing over Boeing and make life interesting for every american corporation which does significant amounts of business there or dependent on its exports.

Tensions with Russia could exacerbate further given the current political climate in USA and provide opportunity for yet another shitshow. Did I mention how conflicts between internet monopolies and right wingers could spill into the real world with potentially disastrous results for the former. To summarize, the rest of 2019 and whole of 2020 will almost certainly witness far larger and problematic shitshows than anything in living memory. Even worse, many of these shitshows could feed into each other to create meta-shitshows.

What do you think? Comments?

Corporate Media Campaign to Discredit Nunes Memo is Helping Trump

February 3, 2018 18 comments

I usually avoid writing on topics involving yet another corporate media manufactured lie or purported outrage, because those bullshit fantasies usually have no worthwhile impact on reality- rather like the proverbial storm in a teacup. The corporate media campaign, first to hinder publication of the Nunes memo and then attempt to discredit it is, however, a bit different for reasons we shall soon discuss. But before we go any further, I will clarify my positions on the background of some of the characters involved in this darkly comic saga.

Firstly, Devin Nunes is a mediocre republican congressman representing a congressional district in rural California– with a passing resemblance to an obese version of the Michael Scott character from the american version of ‘The Office‘. Before his current rise to fame (or infamy), he was just another republican politician who never found a corporate dick which was too disgusting to suck- provided he was compensated for his services. In other words, he is your generic republican politician who was elected because the democratic party candidate was either absent or even more disgusting.

Secondly, my views on Trump are very well-known and my past predictions about him have turned out to be very accurate. As some of you might remember, I predicted that he would win the republican nomination in August 2015. I then predicted that HRC would lose to Trump in the 2016 general election, regardless of what all those credentialed “experts” were saying. My very early predictions about the likely disastrous trajectory of a Trump presidency have held up quite well. I have also written about the probability of Trump completing his first term in Office. To make a long story short, it is highly unlikely that the ongoing Mueller investigation will end his presidency.

Now, let us turn our attention to the Nunes memo aka what most people in USA had already guessed about the Mueller investigation. As some of my more regular readers might remember, I have written numerous posts about how promotion of the “Russiagate” scandal was always a sign of intellectual bankruptcy among establishment democrats. I also wrote about the main reasons why establishment democrats have a desperate need to keep on believing in that made-up story and how they and their supporters in the corporate media have kept up a non-stop campaign which aims to convince people that Trump is a “puppet of Putin” who was elected only because of “russian interference in our sacred elections”.

To be clear, once again- I am not implying that Trump is a competent president. In fact, his first year in office has proven to be train-wreck of epic proportions for everybody but the rich and corporate donors to the republican party (and their minions in the legislature and judiciary). Establishment democrats have, however, largely ignored his abysmal record on a range of issues from providing massive tax breaks for the rich, multiple attempts to destroy important regulatory agencies, destroying healthcare programs and much more. Instead they seem to be unduly focused on non-issues such as his moral character, personal life, alleged collusion with Putin and now ‘obstruction of justice’.

But what does any of this have to do with the corporate media’s reaction to the release of the Nunes memo? As it turn out, a fucking lot! The memo for all its issues, explicitly says that the FBI investigation into the Trump presidential campaign in 2016 was initiated based on sketchy and politically biased sources. In other words, it suggest that the investigation into “Russiagate” and Trump-Russia and Trump-Putin connections is a witch-hunt conducted by people in FBI (and deep-state) who want Trump to resign or be impeached. As many of you might realize, this is precisely what a majority of american who are not partisan democrats have come to believe over the last year.

The corporate media, in its enthusiasm to support establishment democrats, is making things far worse than things might have been. Let me explain.. to begin with, they kept on shouting from the rooftops that releasing the memo was somehow going to cause massive damage to ‘national security’ which seems rather farcical once you actually read that four page document. Now that it has been released, they are assaulting everyone with talking points from the same set of “credentialed experts” who confidently say that the same memo is either meaningless or shoddy.

Which begs the question- how did a memo whose release was going to start the end of days before it was released quickly turn out to be a worthless and shoddy piece of work? Clearly, something is not right with the corporate media- and most people have caught on that problem over the last few years. Some of you might remember how the same media outlets and talking heads tried to tell everyone that Trump’s morals and personal life made him unfit to elected president during the 2016 election campaign.

Remember how over 80% of HRC’s attacks advertisements in 2016 were about Trump’s character and language and how it would affect children watching TV? I wonder how that worked, given that she outspent him by more than 2-to-1. Or what about all those polls prophesying a landslide HRC victory which filled corporate media in 2016. My point is that a majority of people now do not believe what they read, hear or see on corporate media. In fact, they are far more likely to believe the opposite of whatever the corporate media is trying to make them believe- not unlike how people in soviet-era Russia saw the domestic reporting of Pravda and Izvestia.

To summarize, the corporate media’s very visibly coordinated campaign to first try suppressing the release of the Nunes memo and then try to ‘debunk’ it has given that memo far more credibility than otherwise possible. The whole ganging up on Trump , releasing identical ‘debunking’ points about that memo and constant coverage of “credentialed experts”makes Trump look like the victim of an elitist deep-state that is working tirelessly to immiserate average people. To put it another way, the corporate media and their backers have, once gain, achieved the near impossible- make Trump look like the real victim while simultaneously increasing public support for him if he ends up firing more people from the FBI and DOJ. Quite impressive and darkly comic, if you ask me.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Implosion of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign: 1

November 12, 2016 14 comments

As some regular readers of this blog might know, many of my predictions about the 2016 presidential election in USA have turned out to very prescient. But why take my word for it? Here are links to some older posts that predicted how the presidential campaign would shape up..

I first wrote that Trump was likely to the republican presidential candidate on August 31, 2015. Infact, I wrote a whole series of posts on why Trump was likely to win the republican nomination at a time when most people saw his candidacy as a joke or an act of self promotion. And it only gets better from there because I also wrote (on February 20, 2016) that Hillary Clinton would lose the presidential election against an even moderately competent Republican opponent. I also predicted that many blacks who voted for Obama would not vote for Hillary Clinton, in a post of February 11, 2016. I also predicted that the HRC ‘private email server and deleted emails’ controversy would be exposed as an example of legal corruption in a post on January 21, 2016.

I also wrote many other posts on why Trump’s numerous inflammatory statements and gaffes would not hurt his chances on August 9, 2016. I also wrote a short series on why all that fake moral Outrage by the ‘establishment’ against Donald Trump was unlikely to hurt his chances in the election. I even wrote about why HRC was losing in the raw polling data numbers to Trump and why attempts to prop her up my media and pollsters were likely to backfire on them. The point is that I was able to correctly predict the course of events weeks and months before they occurred. Most importantly, I did not back off on my predictions based on the latest flavors of bullshit propaganda propagated by the noise making machine known as the mainstream media.

So how was I able to make so many correct predictions, with proper reasoning, in an election season where almost every establishment presstitute, pundit , expert and pollster got it so horribly wrong? Well.. it is quite simple. I looked at all available evidence in an objective manner and without prejudice to its source- as long as said source did not try to hide its bias. Furthermore, some of my earlier posts on the decline of functional institutions in society had laid the groundwork for understanding this phenomenon. Having said that, let us look at the major reasons behind HRC’s loss to Donald Trump.

Firstly though HRC will eventually end up with slightly more total votes than Trump (who won the electoral college), she received somewhere between 9-10 million fewer votes that Obama in 2008 and about 5-6 million fewer votes that Trump in 2012. Think about that for a second.. HRC got a few million fewer votes than Obama in either of this two presidential campaign. In contrast to that, Trump’s final tally of total votes will be about the same as McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Perhaps even more problematically, HRC was not able to turn out all those supposedly democrat-voting white working class voters in ‘rust belt’ swing-states like Michigan and Wisconsin- which she lost. She even came close to losing supposedly ‘solid-blue’ states like Minnesota and Virginia.

Curiously, many of these working class white voters had no problem voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012- and were a large part of the reason he won the presidency with large margins in the electoral college on both occasions. Obama in 2008 and 2012 had also no problem winning the majority of votes of those making less than the average and median income, while HRC in 2016 barely won that demographic segment. HRC was not able to turn out as many black voters as Obama did in 2008 and 2012. Indeed, her inability to get enough black voters enthused by her candidacy probably cost her the election in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Then there is the issue of the HRC’s inability to get younger voters to vote for her in numbers they did for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

I will post detailed figures and charts with graphical representation of these numbers in the upcoming post of this series. Until then, here is a quick synopsis of the immediate effects of HRC’s loss to Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

1] The Clinton ‘brand’ and money-raising machine in the democratic party have been damaged beyond repair. Though the current members of DNC are downplaying the monumentality of this defeat, it is clear that the DNC and democratic party will have to reinvent and re-brand themselves. They will have to do this by getting rid of most of their current Clinton- and corporation- friendly members.. one way or the other

2] Main stream media outlets in USA (and many other countries) has publicly lost whatever shreds of credibility they still possessed. The same goes for all those “public intellectuals”, “talking heads” and “credentialed experts” who were almost unanimous in incorrectly predicting a HRC victory. Most pollsters, campaign advisers and strategists have been exposed as the borderline frauds they always were.

3] Trump has managed to destroy the credibility and future of both the Clinton and Bush political dynasty. As some of you might realize, there has been a Bush or Clinton on the presidential or vice-presidential ticket for most elections since 1980. This american version of dynastic politics is now over- at least for those two families. Hopefully, this starts an era where people who are not so connected to the political machines of either party have a decent chance of succeeding in politics at the national level.

What do you think? comments?

Hillary Clinton Will Lose Against the Republican Nominee in Nov 2016

February 20, 2016 25 comments

As many of you have heard by now- Hillary Clinton has “won” the democratic caucuses in Nevada by 5% of the vote. The results seem to largely validate most pre-election polls which showed that Hillary Clinton had about 2-3 % more supporters than Sanders. However many aspects of this supposed “victory” and previous democratic primaries have convinced me that Hillary Clinton has little, to no, chance of winning against a populist (or even moderately competent) republican opponent in the presidential election of Nov 2016.

Here is why..

Let us start with some history. As, once again, many of you know- Hillary Clinton (henceforward referred to as Shrillary) was the unopposed candidate of the democratic party establishment. It is also widely known that the democratic party establishment actively discouraged other viable democratic candidates from running against her in the primaries. They did so because they, rightly, felt that Shrillary could not win the democratic nomination against an even moderately competent competitor. Now.. there are many reasons for her innate lack of appeal to democratic and general voters. While she is widely seen as an extremely corrupt and untrustworthy corporate stooge, those attributes by themselves are not the real deal-breaker.

The biggest roadblock in Shrillary’s path to winning the general election is first and foremost- her “personality” (if you can call it that). I am sure that many of you have also noticed that there is something about her persona that just feels highly unnatural, artificial, deceptive and unrelatable. It does not help that every attempt made by her to appear more ‘human’ always ends up making her look more artificial and deceptive. While this would not be a big issue if we still lived in an era before the internet and when part bosses controlled who got the presidential nomination- we don’t. The reality is that people with Shrillary’s “personality” are just not viable presidential candidates in the post-1980 world.

However the democratic party establishment is desperately in need of a presidential candidate who can bring them tens of billions of dollars and other favors from wall street and other corporations. To make a long story short, Shrillary was and is the best bet for funneling all that money and corporate favors into the democratic party establishment. It is also therefore not surprising that the party establishment has invested so heavily in her candidacy. Under “normal” conditions, they might have even succeeded in pulling off that crap- but then a series of events in the real world upset their calculations.

The first two (or three) events that upset their calculations first manifested themselves about 7-8 years ago. The candidacy and eventual victory of Barack Obama was a disaster for Shrillary in many ways that were not fully appreciated in 2008 or even 2012. You see, Obama ran as a more relatable and eloquent version of Shrillary. While the immediate consequence (loss of the 2008 democratic nomination) was a big downer for Shrillary- the second and third order consequences were even worse. The inability and unwillingness of Obama to keep even a fraction of the promises he made to ordinary voters during his campaign have made it much harder for any further democratic candidate to make the case that acceptability by the establishment matters.

To put it another way, very few democratic voters now believe that a presidential candidate who accepts billions from corporations and wall street will keep any of the promises made to them. While this would not have been a major liability as late as the mid-2000s when the general mood in USA was still upbeat- events since 2008 have made it very clear to many voters that the old way of doing things is just not workable. It is therefore amusing to watch Shrillary trying to wrap herself in Obama’s legacy to win black votes in the democratic primaries. My point is that the black votes she might win in the primaries with her embrace of his legacy pale in comparison to the numbers she will lose for doing so in the presidential election.

Another big problem for Shrillary is that her potential republican opponent in 2016 is unlikely to be an establishment politician- at least nobody with as awful a “personality” as hers (except Ted Cruz). Donald Trump, for his many faults and shortcomings, is a far more relatable person than Shrillary. His willingness to play the nativist-populist cards and constantly attack his opponents make him a far more formidable candidate than most greedy and effeminate public “intellectuals” and talking/blogging heads are willing to acknowledge. Look.. Trump handily won the republican primary in South Carolina after calling Bush43 an idiot and liar. In other words, Shrillary can win the general election in 2016 only if her republican opponent was either Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz.

And this brings us to the issue of Bernie Sanders, or more specifically why he has been so successful against Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries.

In the three democratic primaries hat have taken place so far- Bernie has won one with a large margin (around 20% in New Hampshire) and lost two by very narrow margins (0.2% in Iowa and 5% in Nevada). Perhaps more worryingly, Shrillary is losing to Bernie in demographic categories that she was expected to utterly dominate. It is no secret that she is losing to Bernie among white women (especially those younger than 40-45) and the younger voters (18-40). More problematically, she is now losing to Bernie in the Hispanic voter category. While some of this might be due to the fact the Hispanic voters are younger than the median- it does not bode well for Shrillary’s presidential aspirations.

But there is a much bigger problem.. she is losing all those categories to a guy who is openly socialist secular jew- a grouping of characteristics that is supposedly to make you unelectable in the presidential election. Even more humiliatingly- he was almost unknown on the national stage until a few months ago. So how did a guy who was almost unknown on the national stage 6-8 months ago suck way so many voters from her. I am not sure if you remember that even 3 months ago- Shrillary was leading Bernie in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada by 30-40% in opinion polls. The fact that he could close and reverse those odds tells you two things. Firstly, Bernie is a pretty good candidate. Secondly, Shrillary is a piss poor candidate who could not win unless the electoral process was heavily rigged in her favor.

I think we have to accept that there are far fervent Shrillary supporters than the media and “experts” want us to believe. While this might not have been an issue if she was running against equally or more unlikable candidates such as Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz- the lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy among democratic and democratic-leaning voters will be a big problem if she runs against a populist like Trump or a non-repulsive empty suit like Rubio. This will be especially problematic if she gets nominated through overwhelming support by unelected ‘super-delegates’ at the democratic convention in mid-2016.

To summarize- Shrillary will very likely lose the 2016 presidential election even if she gets the democratic nomination because her nomination will result in low turnout of democratic and democratic-leaning voters. Additionally, some potential democratic voters might just end up voting for Trump. Also, Trump or Rubio might increase turnout among republican or republican-leaning voters. The net result of these voting patterns is that democrats will end up losing one or more of the so-called ‘swing’ states, and thereby the presidency, to republicans. Since the biggest deal-breaker about Shrillary, namely her “personality”, cannot be fixed- it might be better to nominate Bernie Sanders. Alternatively they can Hubert Humphrey themselves into electoral oblivion.

What do you think? Comments?