Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Goodbye, Neoconservatism!

Winning in a landslide after these types of remarks completely repudiates neoconservatism.


Overton said...

I expect that the Trump campaign, and the Republican party remade in Trump’s image, will hire numerous Altrightists for cushy government and party jobs, though probably not the unironic day-of-the-rope fire-up-the-ovens factions. Trumpism is that we are going to this legally and constitutionally – well, legally as the people judge legality, not necessarily legally as far left judges judge legality. Trumpism is populist. Neoreactionaries don’t really care what the people might judge as legal. But today, we are all Trumpists. And Trump does care what the people might judge as legal.

I am rather doubtful that this can be done legally and constitutionally, but obviously needs to be tried. And tried damned hard. I rather suspect that trying damned hard is likely to morph into the Trump monarchy, regardless of Trumps intentions.

Anti semitism is false and dangerous, in that though Jews are overrepresented among political insiders and progs, political insiders and progs are not an instrument of a vast Jewish conspiracy, rather the reverse, but nobody was fighting fair, and antisemitism, the stream of memes originating largely in Pol, worked in its usual function as a populist appeal to the masses, to the considerable benefit of Trump, who though he did not get his own hands dirty, was not overly horrified by his allies and supporters getting their hands alarmingly dirty.

Overton said...

Trump has promised to drain the swamp.

Then in his acceptance speech, he promised not to drain the swamp.

This is less worrying than it might seem, since when you purge powerful people, you don’t want them to see it coming.

From now till the start of the purge, he is going to be playing his cards very close to his chest. Any predictions made from his behavior between now and the purge will be incorrect, because his behavior between now and the purge will be deceptively moderate. The start of the purge will itself be deceptively moderate. And then he will keep on purging. How far he will go, nobody knows. I don’t know.

I would guess the purge starts in March at the earliest. First he has to get his key people into position. Then suddenly, wham, he gets his enemies out of position.

He has for many years been psychologically preparing the American people for massive firings of the permanent government, which firings the courts will deem illegal, but the public will wonder what the hell the courts are maundering about. These firings will happen when those he is about to fire are least expecting it, when they think they have gotten the upper hand over Trump. And during the first months of a Trump government, it will look as if they have the upper hand over Trump.

Anonymous said...

You could call it a landslide, you could call it ~120,000 people in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, you could call it fewer votes than his opponent received...Anyway, he won. It's interesting that a lot of people--of all stripes--are trying to draw backward-looking conclusions from a situation that, while presenting a potentially compelling narrative, is still noisy. Of course, now Big T has a chance to create that narrative himself.

trump train said...

The Alt Right and Trumpian populism are now aligned much in the way the Left is aligned with Democratic politicians like Obama and Hillary. The American Right always lacked a true vanguard. In the form of “conservatives,” it had only a “rearguard” or "muffle” or “hall monitor.” We—and only we—can say the things Trump can’t say . . . can criticize him in the right way . . . and can envision a new world that he can’t quite grasp.

CP said...

Trump almost won Minnesota and Virginia, in which case he would've won 329-209.

Until yesterday, pollsters and pundits like Nate Silver were trying to decide whether it would be a Clinton landslide or just a Clinton victory.

When the Republican almost flips Minnesota, it's because there was a landslide.

CP said...

Also, speaking of mediocre Nate Silver:

My take at the time, in 2013:

Silver misses the opportunity to develop systematic explanations for why people make bad predictions, for example the principal/agent problem. The problem is that Silver is a technocrat so he can't tell you that bureaucrats make bad predictions because of an incentive misalignment wherein they prioritize their careers over the lives and property of those whom their predictions can harm. Taleb always pounds the table about lack of skin in the game.

The worst parts are when the book succumbs to left wing dogma. For example, he preaches global warming with nary a mention that there was a Little Ice Age that ended in 1850.

Nate Silver correctly predicted one presidential election where the losing candidate took a dive and another where the losing candidate correctly predicted that he would lose because there was a winning majority already on the payroll of the incumbent.

Anonymous said...

My point is the closeness of the overall numbers; it's determined by a series of coin flips with no do-overs. If you argue that it was almost 329-209 then you grant that it was almost a Clinton victory. You're right about middling (or worse) polling, but giving Trump a 30% chance means he wins 30% of the time this game is played. The problem is that people who see 70-30 (or the less-conscionable 85-15 or 90-10) only see lopsidedness and forget that the smaller number is well above zero. As a result, people on one side think they were blindsided and may scramble toward conclusions which prove erroneous. Ditto the other side, for opposite reasons. Or perhaps the premises on which they were operating, and the conclusions they draw, are accurate. Do think Silver has been wildly overpraised, but it's the plight of most people (gasbags?) with small data sets.

B said...

Re: "We The Vanguard Now"

Trump's victory is baked into Moore's Law.

The oppression of white men was planned during the newspaper era, before 1900, before radio, TV, and movies.

This plan was caught flat-footed by the internet and the resulting change from hub-and-spoke information distribution networks to distribution of news through mesh networks.

The comment sections of online newspapers and blogs form mesh networks, for example.

That's why legacy newspapers shut their comment sections down to keep readers from reaching each other directly.

There is much, much more to come.

whydibuy said...

Funny how when liberals lose they decry the " slim" margin of defeat when in reality it is ALWAYS a very slim margin between winning and losing elections. Many times it was a few thousand votes that kept them in power. But there they just won and who cares by how few votes.
That is why the silly "polls" that said double digit leads for Clinton were and had to have been utter nonsense. Its never that wild.
I just wish the idiot bears who slammed the market at midnight would have given me a chance to buy their idiocy move. Icahn bought then but I could only watch as he cashed in while I had to wait until morning and by then, the rebound had fully happened. GGGGRRRRRRR.

Anonymous said...

@whydidibuy: Sure, except the margin btw 1st and 2nd in 2012 was ~5 million votes, in 2008 ~9.5 million, in 2004 ~3 million, 1996 ~8 million, 1992 ~5.8 million. Even 2000 was ~500k vs. the ~200k seen most recently. Those are the numbers, which perhaps don't accord with your recollection, and I'm not sure that your always deserves an all-caps. I do think it's a natural tendency to take a win as a win and a loss as an injustice, and I don't think it's particularly restricted to one side of the aisle.

As for the overnight, that was wild. The EWW Nov puts I grabbed just before the reg market close on Tuesday worked out well. As always, better to be lucky than good.

whydibuy said...

Anon, those are cumulative votes. I was referring to individual states and in some cases, individual counties within the state causing the winner/loser decision. And thanks for proving my point that the silly double digit lead Clinton supposedly had was total fiction. Its only a question as to whether the fiction was intentional of outright stupidity. I think any pollster would know through historical experience that the race is much tighter than their so called poll indicated unless they wanted it to indicate such a colossal imbalance .

Anonymous said...

@whydidibuy: Happy investing.