January 17th, 2017

Michael Moore really nailed it, pre-election

Until the other day I hadn’t read this Michael Moore prediction that Trump would win, made back in July of 2016 when it wasn’t exactly what most people were saying. I’d heard he’d made the prediction, but till now I hadn’t read what he’d actually written.

And boy, I really have to give the guy props for the fact that he was spot on about the fact that Trump would win and how it would happen (as was our very own commenter “Cornhead,” I might add, although their attitudes towards a Trump victory diverged significantly, to say the least).

Here’s Moore last July:

…Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit.

I believe Trump is going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Four traditionally Democratic states – but each of them have elected a Republican governor since 2010 (only Pennsylvania has now finally elected a Democrat). In the Michigan primary in March, more Michiganders came out to vote for the Republicans (1.32 million) that the Democrats (1.19 million). Trump is ahead of Hillary in the latest polls in Pennsylvania and tied with her in Ohio. Tied? How can the race be this close after everything Trump has said and done? Well maybe it’s because he’s said (correctly) that the Clintons’ support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states. When Trump stood in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan primary, he threatened the corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with their planned closure of that factory and move it to Mexico, he would slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped back to the United States. It was sweet, sweet music to the ears of the working class of Michigan, and when he tossed in his threat to Apple that he would force them to stop making their iPhones in China and build them here in America, well, hearts swooned…

And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64. All Trump needs to do to win is to carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these four rust belt states. He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top. This is how it will happen in November.

You gotta hand it to him. Moore is originally from Flint, Michigan, he knows that area very well, and he was absolutely correct about what happened there in November.

That doesn’t mean he’s correct on much else. But you know what? I’d listen to him in the future when he talks about opinions in the Rust Belt.

55 Responses to “Michael Moore really nailed it, pre-election”

  1. Cornhead Says:

    I just wish I was as rich as Michael Moore.

    Attending all of those Trump Iowa rallies convinced me he could win enough blue collar voters in Midwestern states. Firemen, meatpackers, truck drivers, etc just love him and were very enthusiastic.

    Hillary rallies, on the other hand, were not very exciting and mostly had 50 plus old women, younger women and minorities. The rally in the heart of the African-American part of Omaha had a very small minority turnout. I also recall seeing a young Muslim convert mother (blue eyes and very white) who was clearly from a place like Hastings, Nebraska. One rally in CB had foreign exchange students and they were not voting. The demographics were all wrong for Hillary. And, of course, she is a criminal.

    It also did not help that the idiots Mook and Podesta never spent a dime in WI and MI and she never visited. She didn’t work hard those last 60 days. I should have put money on it.

  2. I'm with Decius Says:

    I know Hillary won the suburban collar around Philly where I live, but probably not by as much as she was counting on. In my very middle income neighborhood–electricians, contractors, cops, nurses, middle managers–he was very popular. I also know a lot of older women–church ladies–who wound up voting for Trump.

  3. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    The moral of this story may be that even liberals will awaken if their livelihood is taken away. I say ‘may’… given Obama’s 57% approval rating.

    As for Moore, the truism that, “even a broken clock is right twice a day” comes to mind.

  4. Yancey Ward Says:

    Moore wasn’t the only one who predicted it that way- Don Surber made the same observations about the midwest, but Moore was the one with the highest profile.

    Even though I always thought Trump had an even chance at winning, I never would have predicted he would do it by winning PA, WI, and MI. I thought all three states would be Clinton victories between 2 and 4% in a best case scenario for Trump, and that he would have to win all the Romney states plus OH, VA, FL, and one of either NV or NH.

    In retrospect, I should have paid more attention to the polling out of IA- it did always puzzle me that IA seem to always be polling for Trump since early July, and I suspected it was because the state is mostly lily white and less prone to bad modeling based on Obama-level minority turnout. I suspect most of the polls in WI, PA, and MI were precisely wrong because of such bad minority voting modeling. Blacks just didn’t turnout to nearly enough of a degree to overcome Trump’s appeal to white voters in those states.

  5. Ira Says:

    Perceptive folks like Cornhead and Michael Moore saw the distinct possibility of a Trump victory. On the other hand, with Obama’s actually being re-elected, can anyone really gainsay those who thought Hillary would be elected?

  6. Brian Swisher Says:

    Signs of the apocalypse: Michael Moore being correct about something, and Piers frickin’ Morgan taking the press to task for shoddy, biased coverage.

  7. parker Says:


    Iowa is turning red. The gop control both houses of the legislature and the govenor’s mansion as of 2016. It shifts back and forth between purple and red, but thanks to bho and hrc for turning our state senate red. Thank you for installing Joni Ernst to take over Tom Harkins’ vacated seat.

  8. J.J. Says:

    I knew Moore was right about who Trump’s voters and supporters were. I think it was I who linked to the video of him explaining it in a pre-election comment here. (Too lazy to find the comment.)

    That said, I was never convinced that there were enough Trump voters, as described by Moore, to actually put him over the top. About a month before the election I began putting quite a lot of thought into how I would position my finances for a Hillary presidency. The actual outcome was a big surprise to me. And, since I was a Trump voter, (actually an anti-Hillary voter) a pleasant surprise it was.

  9. Frog Says:

    Moore’s is a surprisingly trenchant analysis, coming as it does from one who thinks Cuba is a great place to get your heart surgery done.

  10. expat Says:

    I just got an email news alert from WaPo: Obama is letting Bradley Manning out of jail in May.

  11. Jim Doherty Says:

    You have said corny nailed it a couple of times, but I must have missed those. I wish you would post his as well. I was resigned to the mess, and had to be called away from my computer games I was hiding out in, to go turn on the tv. I watched fox for a bit but when I saw the trends holding I switched to MSNBC and never went back.

    I stayed hydrated on MSNBC tears the rest of the night.

  12. Jim Doherty Says:

    Also I have to ask others on this site, cause its just mostly us. I have had this wierd fixation since the election. I have wacted the youtube video’s of all the coverage of every network. I couldnt find one for CBS but I watched ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC 3 times, BBC and some lefty site called Fusion.

    I think its creepy. But I find their reactions fascinating. Their were no satisfying breakdowns, but their was a lot of red eyes, and tight faces. Koki Roberts looked like she had just survived a plane crash and was telling us all about it.

    So have I lost my mind? Anyone else ? Should I worry about myself?

  13. J.J. Says:

    Jim Doherty: “So have I lost my mind? Anyone else ? Should I worry about myself?”

    I can’t really say. I would rather have a colonoscopy than watch even a short section of any of the MSM TV. I know the libs are traumatized. I can see it in my neighbors’ eyes and attitudes. I don’t need to watch MSNBC or the Clinton News Network to confirm it.

    Watch Fox. Be happy. But be cautious. The troubles are boiling. The road ahead is going to be a bumpy one.

  14. Paul in Boston Says:

    John Doherty. I went to bed at 10:30 on election night thinking that Hillary was going to win but woke up about an hour later for some reason and turned on the networks, which I haven’t watched in years. I still have a smile on my face from watching the tears and upset that night.

    Martha Radiz [sp?] was literally in tears. Georgi Stephanopolous looked like he was going to break down. All those memories of good times with the Clintons and dragging $5 bills through trailer parks picking up jail bait for Bill, all gone, all down the drain. The absolute best moment was Andrea Mitchell having a gigantic hysterical fit in which she recited verbatim a speech that Hillary gave in February (!) on why Donald Trump was unfit to be President. At the moment, I thought that was quite a feat to remember a nine month old speech. The next day I described it to a couple of my buddies at the gym and one of them instantly said she probably wrote it. I’m inclined to agree.

    I’’d still like to know what really happened at Clinton headquarters when they told Hillary it was over. Over the years there have been stories that leaked out of the queen screaming, smashing stuff, and throwing things when things didn’t go her way. The tantrum must have been off scale on election night. I’d bet they had to put her in an ice bath and pump her up on drugs to even get her out into public at 11 am the next day. She was probably in absolutely no shape to go out at 2 am that night and concede as she should have.

  15. neal Says:

    The rust belt working class have no one to represent.

    Of course, the educated would never actually talk to a real person. That would probably upset the collective context.

    Sometimes real history is best understood by being there.

  16. Big Maq Says:

    Really, Dan McLaughlin’s analysis is a must read for understanding what happened

    Four Key Points:
    1) Trump had performed historically poorly by the standards of challengers in post-incumbent elections (i.e., elections with no incumbent on the ballot following the reelection of an incumbent)

    2) Trump also didn’t do especially well in the battleground states but won because the handful of states he flipped narrowly from the Democrats were almost all large states

    3) while Trump did better than past GOP nominees in some states, he still underperformed and depended heavily on declining Democratic turnout.

    4) it’s reasonable to believe that another Republican nominee in 2016 would have collected more of the votes Trump left on the table … what we can conclude is that Trump failed to win the votes of quite a lot of people who were at least open to voting for Republicans for important positions

    Dan then supports this last point with an analysis of how trump underperformed GOP Senate and House candidates overall, and specifically with the Hispanic voters.

    Some Additional Points:

    (it was widely assumed that) Trump’s lack of a get-out-the-vote operation and the Democrats’ presumed and widely reported superiority in the ground game would make the difference in a close race…

    outsiders also failed to see the hubristic ineptitude of the Hillary camp, especially its neglect of the Midwest in pursuit of a national wave and elusive pickup opportunities in Georgia, Arizona, and Texas….

    When placed in proper context, we can see that Trump ran well behind the historic averages and down-ticket Republicans, losing more votes from the Republican tent than he brought in….

    there are signs that another Republican could have won the other states that decided the election, quite possibly by a wider margin, and maybe could have won other states such as Minnesota, Colorado, Virginia, or New Hampshire….

    His Conclusion:

    What we do know is that Donald Trump had the wind at his back and did some things Republicans had not done for a long time. In the final analysis, though, he did less than the historical trends suggested were possible. If he wants a second term, he’ll need to figure out how to win over urban, suburban, and Hispanic voters who voted for other Republicans in 2016. If he wants to hand the White House to a successor, he’ll need to expand his coalition enormously.

    My Take Away:

    This is not a sustainable win.

    In four more years, where the population WILL increase, the eligible voter count also increases. We cannot count on voter “apathy” and expect to win with 27.2% of the eligible voters checking GOP on their ballot.

    To put that in context, in the last three elections, Romney had 27.4% of eligible voters’ vote, the lowest of either two major candidates in those races. trump under-performed even that.

    The low turnout, coupled with the swing of a segment of dem voters to trump (working class, rust belt), indicates that there were a significant number of would-be GOP voters that didn’t pull the lever for trump.

    When faced with a dem candidate who is likely MUCH stronger than clinton, and in four years will be “fresher” than trump, can trump win those lost GOP votes back in 2020, while keeping those dem voters who swung to him, all to keep pace with increased turnout for that dem candidate?

    If we thought this campaign of 18 months is exhausting, what do we think folks will think after 4 years with trump in office?

    Best to push the GOP Congress to implement their legislative goals within the next 12-18 months, while they still have majority, and make a major cut to the size and scope of government to let the economy take off on its own.

    some of trump’s picks seem to be a vote in that direction, but his tweets and speeches don’t seem to quite match.

    We’ll see.

  17. neo-neocon Says:

    John Doherty:

    Here’s what Cornhead wrote on Election Day, early in the afternoon (1:21 PM Eastern Time):

    I am predicting a slim DJT win. He wins NC FL IA MI OH PA WI.

    Enthusiasm makes the difference. The Republic is saved.

    I think most people reading the blog thought Cornhead had flipped his lid. He was positively giddy with excitement and positivism. Seemingly delusional.

    And completely and totally correct about which states went for Trump.

    Also on Election Day, at 1:54 PM, he wrote:

    The shy Trump voter will win the day.

    I have two Hispanics friends and the husband just retired from the military. Both Trump voters although the MSM tells us Hispanics hate Trump.

    Then at 2:30 AM that evening (Nov. 9), he allowed himself a little victory pat on the back:

    Did I call it or what?

    Of course, nobody’s perfect, and Cornhead made a prediction on Election Day that had little to do with who would win. There are only about 2 weeks left to see if he was right about this one, and I don’t think he’s going to be proven correct. I actually think these two will always stay married to each other. Here’s what Cornhead wrote at 3:52 PM on Election Day:

    Another prediction. If Hillary loses, she files for divorce on him in January. Why keep up the charade?

    It’s no charade, IMHO. Marriages can be mysterious and complex things, and whatever the sexuality or lack thereof in that union, I think they’re partners for life.

  18. Adrian Day Says:

    Yes. He was right, but hypocritically, he counseled the rust belt folks against, know they were hurting, knowing they had been written off by their government and that no one gave a damn. But he wasn’t the only one who knew. If you want a guy who pretty much always calls it write and knew everything Moore did, minus the BS, youtube Styxhexenhammer666.

    4:29 / 5:26



  19. Big Maq Says:

    “Enthusiasm makes the difference. The Republic is saved.”

    @Neo and Cornhead – enthusiasm was the wrong call – clinton lost yuge – the is the core of it.

    If trump had outperformed the percentage of eligible voters that McCain received, then it MIGHT have been reasonable to say it was “enthusiasm” that drove it.

    McCain had 28.1% (in a landslide year for obama, btw, who took 32.8%), trump had 27.2%.

    One can be “correct” but with all the wrong reasons.

    Oh, and the Republic is not yet saved – rather premature declaration.

    trump was an awful candidate.

    We’ll see how he is as POTUS. He no longer has the benefit of being so mutable, as he has to make decisions now.

  20. Irene Says:

    @Big Mac

    “When faced with a dem candidate who is likely MUCH stronger than clinton…”

    Do you or NR have anyone in mind? Anyone?

    Most of that analysis sounds like NR sour grapes. Did it mention that DJT spent 50% of what Clinton did? That DJT faced incredible headwinds from the GOPe? That DJT faced Romney campaigning against him after he won the nomination (isn’t that a GOP first?) That an entire cabal of neo-cons (sorry Neo!) – many of whom associated with NR – fought tooth and nail to discredit him?

    NR hates DJT’s style and style themselves as the only bonafide conservatives in the universe. I was horrified with Steven Hayward and others during the election cycle. Snobs, all of them. And not very bright or open to examining what was going on all over America the past 30 years either.

    Here’s my prediction. In four years time, when DJT has peeled away a lot of the DC rot and people start to see the results of his work, the economy will be growing at at least 3%, the Dems will stick with their SJW nonsense and turn off an even larger % of the white, black and hispanic vote, and many more Americans will vote for DJT should he decide to run again.

  21. Irene Says:

    @Big Mac
    “trump was an awful candidate.”

    He was not. He took on the MSM, the GOP, the Dems, the 1%-ers, Silicon Valley, the Globalists, the SJWs, the Climate Changers, the Clinton Machine, and many others and won.

    In the process, he won the hearts of millions of Americans who thought they’d never find someone to defend their interests – the forgotten Americans.

    That is the definition of a wonderful candidate.

  22. Irene Says:

    @Big Mac

    “being so mutable, as he has to make decisions now.”

    In case you haven’t noticed, he has been making decisions and executing them for over 2 months now. That’s why the Paris Conference had to back off Israel, why international corporations worldwide are pledging to bring back over 1,000,000 jobs to the US, etc. etc.

    Not to mention fielding great candidates for his cabinet and busting up a very very corrupt media.

    How can you honestly think he won’t do at least as well as Obama, GW Bush, Clinton and BH Bush just given what he’s already done?

    What crazy standard are you using?

  23. Frog Says:

    Big Maq claims the Dems will have strong candidates in 2020. I ask: Who are they? I see a wretched lot of sorry Dem Senators, and there is not much to choose from in the House or the few governorships that are still Democratic.
    Cory Booker would surely like to be it, the first head-shaved black president. He is unfortunately a useless bag of hot air.

  24. y81 Says:

    Irene: if you face a lot of opposition within your own party, then that means that another candidate who didn’t face such opposition would probably have done better, which is what NR said. You appear to be invoking some norm of fairness, as if elections were golf games in which each player got a handicap in order to even the odds going in.

  25. Irene Says:


    Yes, I heard what NR has said. Over and over and over and I don’t buy it.

    What other Republican candidate has won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin in your lifetime, eh? Gotta go back to Reagan, if I’m not mistaken.

    Romney was loved by the Republican establishment when he ran, but he couldn’t overcome a corrupt media. Well, show me what other candidate had the balls to take on the media in the 2016 election cycle the way DJT did. Because THAT’S what was needed to beat the Clintons and the MSM.

    I’m not invoking some “norm of fairness” either. You need to reread what I wrote. I’m pleased as punch that DJT doesn’t play “fair” because it’s the other side that made the rules and I really, really despise the left.

  26. Irene Says:

    Personally, I think that NR is jealous that a “lout” like DJT had a winning formula and NR didn’t.

  27. Richard Saunders Says:

    Cornhead: Michael Moore is not a dumb guy. It’s just that when he assembles all the facts, analyzes, is about ready to come to a conclusion, just before he opens his mouth, a little subroutine activates in his head that says, “No, you are a lefty. You cannot say that. Change your answer.” It’s very perceptible when that happens. Weird.

    BTW, I did bet on the election — the loser bet me 5:1 that Trump wouldn’t get 100 electoral votes. I took $500 of that action. The loser has not paid up yet. (Are you still there, parker?) I’m not holding my breath.

  28. Cornhead Says:

    Going forward, the big story is the Trump Cabinet. I’m thrilled with the nominees at State, Treasury, Defense, Commerce, EPA, Education and Energy. I suspect we will like his SCOTUS nomination.

  29. neo-neocon Says:


    I don’t think the word “neocons” means what you think it means.

    And most of the people who were against Trump were against him as a nominee. Yes, there definitely were some NeverTrumpers, but not all that many, really. There were a lot of neutral people and a lot of reluctant Trump voters.

    Somewhere I have a draft for an article I wrote about that. Maybe I should publish it.

  30. Big Maq Says:

    @Irene – you are clearly a fanboy or should that be fangirl for trump.

    Look, trump had 18+ months to lay out his case and convince many that he was the man for the job.

    The crux of his case was “not hillary”. So, fine, he won – fair and square (I add, since many confuse being against trump this election cycle as being for clinton, and then, by extension, buying into the left’s argument that the election was somehow “rigged” – is there an echo in this election room? Certain I heard that before! /sk).

    Turns out, many of the would be dem voters were “not hillary” as well, in greater degree than would be GOP voters were “not trump”.

    I am not arguing his cabinet picks are bad. In fact, it brings more hope for the next four years than existed on Nov 8.

    That said, he’s not really had to deliver on policy.

    He’s said all kinds of things in the campaign.

    You cannot tell me that you absolutely know what he will do on most any policy. We are all still at a guessing stage right now.

    After inauguration, it is his responsibility to run the federal government. We will now see what is real / what he really stands for from what is simply trump’s mutable b.s. on the election stump.

    As I’ve said before, if he turns out to be a very good POTUS, I will fall down on my knees in thanks.

    Until then, he had his chance to make the case. He hasn’t. I remain skeptical.

    Keep in mind, my view of success might be different than yours.

    I want a drastic reduction in the size and scope of government. This is an opportunity for the GOP to do so, with Congress and WH in their hands.

    You may be one of the segment of voters who turned to trump who want government involvement, only for your own benefit.

    That would be a huge mistake, and just keep that G-march rolling right along, imho. And, that is one of my concerns wrt trump.

  31. Cornhead Says:

    CIA nominee too. First in his class at West Point.

  32. Cornhead Says:

    Sorry. How could I forget Jeff Sessions?

    Trump has selected stars. He learned that in business.

  33. Big Maq Says:

    @Frog – I HIGHLY doubt the dems will come up with someone weaker than clinton.

    But, be my guest and question the proposition because I don’t have a specific name in mind, as if that invalidates the possibility.

    The idea that the dems DON’T have a “bench”, an assumption you seem to be making, is a poor one, about as poor as the “demographics is destiny” assumption the clinton campaign rested their laurels on.

    obama was a US Senator for barely more than two years before he announced his candidacy for POTUS.

    The disarray within the dem party opens up all kinds of possibilities over the next four years.

    And, by then trump will be a known quantity. He will either surprise us all, or gravely disappoint us all. Wonder if he’s even left any room for himself for anywhere in between.

  34. The Other Chuck Says:

    That a fluke of a vote got Trump elected is now being touted as evidence of his brilliance, and God help us, that of Michael Moore. Does anyone need reminding that he lost the popular vote by close to 3 million? That despite putting his foot in his mouth at every turn and running a campaign inclusive of every white supremacist bigot and sieg heil nutcase he somehow managed to squeak by, much to his own surprise, which outcome is a mandate?

    I don’t give the con artist credit for anything other than a coin toss outcome. Without a sick, corrupt old woman as opponent he would would have been wiped out.

    I’m holding my fingers crossed and praying for his better nature to emerge. That, and impeachment leading to Pres. Pence.

  35. neo-neocon Says:

    The Other Chuck:

    I don’t give Michael Moore any sort of credit for brilliance.

    I give him credit—and I’m quite specific about this in the post—for understanding what was going on in the Rust Belt.

    And, since what was going on was something he didn’t like and didn’t want and which he thought would lead to Trump’s election, I give him credit in this case for not sticking his head in the sand about it.

  36. Irene Says:


    Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, et. al. are today’s neocons and I do believe they were virulently anti-Trump.

    That’s what I meant.

  37. neo-neocon Says:


    Neither of the people you mention are neocons, although they are sometimes referred to that way. But the word is thrown around much too freely and used far too generally, often to mean “someone on the right with whom I don’t agree” or “someone who is a conservative Jew” or “someone who advocated the war in Iraq.”

    I’ve written a lot of posts about the definition of the word “neocon.” It’s rather complex. You may have read those posts before; they’re under the category “neocons” on my right sidebar.

    Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg were both raised as conservatives in conservative families. Bill Kristol’s father, Irving Kristol, was a neocon, however (was a liberal when he was young).

    “Neocon” does not refer to everyone who ever supported the Iraq War. If so, almost all Republicans and many Democrats would be neocons. Nor does it refer to Jewish conservatives, some of whom have been conservative their whole lives. Read this article by Jonah Goldberg on the subject.

  38. Irene Says:

    @Big Mac

    We’re living in parallel universes.

    You say, “The crux of his case was “not hillary”.”

    In my universe, the crux of Hillary’s case was “not Trump”. Trump stood for:

    Jobs, jobs, jobs
    Build the wall and have Mexico pay for it
    Drain the swamp
    Make America competitive
    Repeal and replace Obamacare
    Rebuild our inner cities and crumbling infrastructure
    Extricate us from pointless wars, but also defeat ISIS pronto
    and generally, MAGA

    So, clearly I heard a bunch of things and you heard nothing of the sort. Okay.

    Since you don’t know me, saying “You may be one of the segment of voters who turned to trump who want government involvement, only for your own benefit. ” is a pretty nasty thing to attribute to me.
    For the record, it is utterly untrue.

    I’ve been a resident of NYC since the mid-1970s. I’ve watched DJT wheel and deal through the best of times and the worst of times. In fact, he made the worst of times memorable for helping transform them into the best of times. And no, I don’t really care that he got super rich doing it. He risked a lot but we – the residents of NYC – gained a lot too.

    And I’m hoping he will put his talents to good use for our country.

  39. Yancey Ward Says:

    It is obvious, isn’t it, why Moore and Cornhead got it right. They are clearly Russian agents who had the inside info on how the election would be hacked.

    Big Maq,

    Until you can reasonably demonstrate which Republican candidate in the field could have won any of the following three states-WI, MI, or PA- I think it quite likely all the other candidates would have lost the election to Clinton, but I do think almost any of them would have done better in the overall popular vote than Trump. That really should scare the Republican Party, but they seem intent on trying to convince themselves that Trump only won because his campaign just failed to be too weak to win.

  40. Richard Aubrey Says:

    The popular vote for Clinton was most heavily concentrated in the coastal blue urban areas. While votes count, one for one, the concentration as a proportion of the voters is worrying. And it’s a reason to keep the electoral college.
    Urban blue areas can run themselves, see SF, NYC, Boston, etc. irrespective of Trump, for the most part. So they can keep being as blue as they wish. Point is, they don’t get to inflict blue on the rest of us.

  41. Cornhead Says:


    My daughter speaks Russian!

  42. Artfsldgr Says:

    I think the left forgets that a large proportion of the places they import people from in violation of the limits of immigration, come from progressive/fabian/communist/socialists/despotic/elite/ etc places and dont want it… and the USA was the only place to run to that had the least of it (which is the reality behind the spam song prior to the internet… you can have it but you always get a bit of socialism)

    but a commenter at latimes had it best:
    America just spent 8 years with a black president. For many African Americans, it meant one big thing: freedom to ‘dream’

    why is what he said the best?
    he is an immigrant, and sees what cosseted self believing worldly liberals dont see, ignore, etc.

    Unfortunately obama is lot more W.E. Dubois than Booker T Washington.

    There is despair because the Black Intellectual and Political Class in the US around 1920 switched from Booker T Washington (strive for economic power) to W.E. Dubois (strive for political power).

    I was born and raised in a 3rd world country (with black majority); a small number of immigrants (from Syria, Lebanon, Germany) came in after WW2 to settle and set up business. These immigrants had 1 thing in mind: free market. These immigrants did not seek political power; how could they since they are few in number). At the end, these immigrant minorities, not the black majority control the country’s economy.

    With economic power, one can buy political power. The political class is so easily corruptible; the smallest government doing just the essentials (safeguarding freedom and justice and negative liberties) is the best remedy against corruption.

    I see some silly commentators about the white majority must comply to the Black minority. Part of the white majority is leaving or is going Galt. Some Leftist historians (thus revisionist) would claim that Black slaves in the US of the 1800’s out-produced free laborers; the truth is, with the same work experience, free laborers out-produced the slaves. The oppression of the White minority by the South African Black majority will bring little economic benefit.

    There is hope for in the US, there are a few Ben Carson’s, a few Tom Sowell’s around; fortunately not all US Blacks are Al Sharpton’s or Obama’s.

    There is hope for Black Africa for some Black statesmen/stateswomen are rejecting foreign aid and seeking trade pacts with other countries as equal partners

    “There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

    Booker T. Washington, 1911

    Albert Schweitzer – the 1952 Nobel peace laureate – asked by a Belgian newspaper if he considered the African as his brother, Schweitzer’s reply: “Yes but only as a kid brother.” The Progressive/Socialists have the same mindset as Albert Schweitzer

  43. Jim Doherty Says:

    I dunno if DJT runs for re-election. He may not depending on what happens and how he feels. Its not like he needs it.

    I think the media is in for a shock. I know right now they think they have seen all the negative pushback possible, but I doubt that. As they and the government inc go to war with him, it is possible that people who didnt vote for him rally to his side depending on the fight.

    I just wish he would pick his fights.

    I also agree that obama was a nobody when he showed up, so a weak bench, is not a good argument, especially when you factor in the media. We know what they did to cover obama’s warts, will they double down? Can they help themselves?

    I think the media and democrats run the risk of hurting themselves more that DJT over the next 4 years. Remember they were selling that govt and big daddy was good and benevolent. What happened to that?

    If they all go to war against DJT, I think they lose people, not gain. They are the ones selling big nanny state, if things improve while the size of govt shrinks, all while they are fighting it tooth and nail, I see them running another Clinton clone. Not hillary, Bill.

    Southern Democrat “moderate”.

  44. Artfsldgr Says:

    Paul Jacobs Lemmings Lament

    Between the politicians’ polarizing power trips
    We’re just too pure and peaceful to decide
    So we got our heads together while the planet fell to bits
    Never once had bent to take a single side


    We are lemmings
    We are crazy
    We will feed our flower habits
    Pushing daisies

    If you’re put upon by powers
    If you’re restless for release
    Death just might be the final rush you crave
    We all believe in flowers
    And we all believe in peace
    There is endless peace and flowers in the grave

    [Repeat chorus]

    We all want to go underground and get back to the earth
    We don’t want nothing if it isn’t free
    A mighty mass of furry little mindless animals
    A million lemmings marching to the sea

    The first half of the show was sketch comedy; the second half was a mock rock festival, “Woodshuck: Three Days of Peace, Love and Death”, a parody of “Woodstock: Three Days of Peace and Music.” “Woodshuck” featured spoofs of Woodstock performers, including Joe Cocker and Joan Baez, as well as parodies of John Denver, Bob Dylan and James Taylor, plus songs performed by fictional groups (e.g., the “Motown Manifestoes” singing Papa was a Running Dog Lackey of the Bourgeoisie).

    The songs from the show were subsequently issued as a record album. A video of one of the original performances, National Lampoon: Lemmings: Dead in Concert 1973, was eventually made available several decades later


    From the play by harvard lampoon, as to the way liberals are self immolating suicidal in their ideology… it was not hard for Micheal Moore to predict things, he made his money playing both sides against the middle… [they knew back then it was a communist movement, but had not switched sides to the despotic as that is what favors institutions over people. ever notice that the colleges made it through the era of weimar, hitler, the divided country, and even the modern era? they are insulated from the consequences of their own teachings!!!!]

    but harvard lampoon, had the liberals and their suicidal flower power love fest debasements, and such, pegged even better than micheal more…

    no wonder we liked the original saturday night live more than any other… they were the cast of lemmints

  45. Artfsldgr Says:

    forgot to mention the acts:

    Welcome to the Woodshuck Festival: Three Days of Peace, Love, and Death; plus band introductions throughout – John Belushi

    Freud, Marx, Engels, and Jung, performing “Lemmings Lament.” – A parody of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, and the songs Woodstock, Long Time Gone, and others. (Also referred to in performance as Freud, Pavlov, Adler, and Jung)

    Joan Baez, performing “Pull the Triggers, Niggers,” a parody of her protest songs and of Dylan’s song “George Jackson,” in particular. Listed on the album cover as “Pull the Tregroes, Negroes.” – Mary Jennifer Mitchell (later replaced by Rhonda Coullet)

    Joe Cocker, “Lonely at the Bottom” – Belushi as Cocker, Paul Jacobs as Leon Russell on piano.

    Motown Manifestoes singing “Papa was a Running Dog Lackey of the Bourgeoisie” (parody of “Papa Was a Rollin’ Stone”), with most of its lines taken from The Communist Manifesto.

    Workers of the world unite –
    You have nothing to lose but your chains.
    You can lose them if you like tonight,
    inRead invented by Teads

    But you gotta strive, you gotta strive with all your might and main.

    The history of our entire society
    Is the history of the struggle with the bourgeoisie
    From now on we must all strive resolutely
    To bring about the overthrow of the bourgeoisie

    I adress myself to the doomed bourgeoisie
    The bourgeoisie creates a world in its own image,
    The bourgeoisie controls the means of production,
    The bourgeoisie leaves nothing but naked self-interest,
    The bourgeoisie is full of shit.

    Our ends can only be attained by the forcible
    overthrow of existing conditions.
    Let the ruling classes tremble at the communist revolution.
    We distain to conceal our views and our aims.
    The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains

    We got a world to win (etc…)

    Workers of the world unite –
    You have nothing to lose but your chains.
    You can lose them if you like tonight,
    But you gotta strive, you gotta strive with all your might and main.

    Donovan, “Nirvana Banana” – Peter Elbling (later addition to the show).

    Megadeath, a parody of heavy metal groups, who end their act by turning the amps so loud that the audience dies. [it originally meant 1 million killed in a nuclear attack AND an American heavy thrash metal band from Los Angeles, California. Guitarist Dave Mustaine and bassist David Ellefson formed the band in 1983 shortly after Mustaine’s dismissal from Metallica – dont know if lemmings or nuclear war inspired the group. 🙂 ]

    “Jackie Christ, Superstar.” Parody of “Jesus Christ, Superstar.” Jesus is a stand-up comedian, while John Belushi played King Herod

    “Defeat Day” – a parody of America’s first military defeat in the Vietnam War. “Put all your troubles in a nickle bag and smile, smile, smile.”

  46. Tom G Says:

    Moore, like Marx in 1867 (150 years!), is fairly good in pointing out negatives in current capitalist / cronyist economies.

    Moore’s silliness, like Marx, is the unrealistic desire of a benign gov’t program to solve the cronyist problems.

    What Moore, like Marx, is missing is a good solution. My own is a free market very small gov’t capitalism, with lots of social safety-net from voluntary charity, AND a gov’t Job Offer (low paid) to every adult up thru retirement. Trump doesn’t seem to believe this, either.

    I understand that Trump wanted to “Make America Great Again”, I just don’t trust him to use honest and admirable means to achieve that desirable end.

    I don’t believe he has, nor will uphold, my own small gov’t principles. So yes, I voted for him happily over Hillary, expecting he would lose like Romney but hoping he’d win.

    In fact, his bullying of Ford to stay in the US has given me pause.
    a) because I don’t like the bullying,
    b) I DO, very much, LIKE Ford staying in the US, and c) maybe a Little Dictator using excessive gov’t force (threats ARE a form of force) to push US companies to employ Americans isn’t so bad.
    d) After so much SJW bullying, including with support of most big business CEOs, I don’t mind them getting a taste of being bullied IN FAVOR of the US middle class.
    e) I suspect that as Trump is EFFECTIVE, in that way that benign dictators (which Plato liked) are able to be, but also does more things that Dems don’t like, they’ll be starting to think more about limiting gov’t. But many “neo-Republicans” will have become resigned to Big gov’t, with the question being which values are running the Big gov’t Big Man.

    One big problem with Dem main stream press now is that, rather than honest complaints about real problems of Trump or Reps, they are full of BS and … fake news.

    There are some real problems out there; but I expect to hear about 300-600% of the problems (for every real problem 2-5 fake problems).

    I’m so very glad that Neo-neo is here to go thru a lot of them — so I don’t have to.
    Thanks again! 🙂

  47. Big Maq Says:

    “We’re living in parallel universes. … In my universe, the crux of Hillary’s case was “not Trump”. – Irene

    The flaw with your argument is that clinton, to her audience, was actually making a positive case for what she’d do. She was overly wonkish on that front.

    There wasn’t much she needed to do to differentiate herself from trump with all his comments and inconsistencies. trump was effectively the one making the contrast – intentionally, and unintentionally.

    That all didn’t overcome her flaws as a candidate.

    Whereas, with trump, it was discussed over and over on this blog how trump was so mutable in the case that he made to his audience that the only real thing we could count on was that he wasn’t clinton – the rest was a hope that he’d be better than the 100% sure rottenness of clinton.

    Now you want to rearrange the arguments that actually happened on this blog with a semantic turnaround.


    Pure fanboy territory.

    Yes, I attribute to you what many have been arguing, post election, what they expect out of trump. If that is wrong, what do YOU want and expect from trump? How do YOU want him to make that happen?

    I doubt it is the same as me, as you imply, but who knows. If it is, I’d like to hear how you get that from his election campaign, because I certainly didn’t (and suspect many more are in the same boat).

    “Until you can reasonably demonstrate which Republican candidate in the field could have won any of the following three states-WI, MI, or PA- I think it quite likely all the other candidates would have lost the election to Clinton, but I do think almost any of them would have done better in the overall popular vote than Trump” – YW

    Suspect your standard is knowingly impossible to “prove”, to your satisfaction at least.

    The reasonable case has already been made, but you chose to skip over it.

    The key points are:

    – trump lost more GOP votes than he brought in.
    – However, clinton lost far more dem votes
    – Together, they each received a significantly lower percentage of eligible voters than the last several elections (they BOTH left voters on the table). For some perspective – McCain had 28.1% of eligible voters in 2008 (against a landslide for obama with 32.6%), while clinton had 28.4% and trump had 27.2%.
    – There was lots of upside potential for the GOP, and, evidently, people were hungry for a change (which is typical after two terms, the incumbent party has an uphill battle and usually loses).

    The only direct comparables we have are polls from prior to the GOP convention. It was well known that most of the other GOP candidates polled much better than clinton in a head to head.

    There is no reason to believe that winning margins they had should have significantly dropped into negative (in favor of clinton) if the news about clinton were still the same as we had seen this election cycle.

    The combination of retaining those GOP votes trump lost, plus maybe a slimmer proportion of those dem voters who trump gained, and perhaps add some of those dem voters who trump never received (an other GOP candidate might have been palatable to them) might have been more than enough to swing states – maybe the same ones, maybe others.

    Might have been an actual landslide rather than the fake one spun by the trump camp.

    Yes, might have been. We don’t have the benefit of a redo, or computer simulation to prove this all absolutely, but there IS a reasonable case to make.

    @Tom G – not a fan of presidents “bullying” as such on issues that are largely market driven. Reminds me too much of obama’s “boot on neck” comment . The only difference is who’s boot this time.

    We only need to remember that any precedent that trump sets (and he seems likely to make new precedent) is going to be in the hands of the next dem POTUS (unless you think elections will soon be abolished – in which case, we have a different argument to make).

    Essentially, you’ve made a red vs blue team type argument. It is all okay, so long as it is “our guy”.

    That is precisely the sword that our Republic will fall on.

    Anyway, last comment on this thread.

    Commenter Bill said we are in a “post-truth” culture. I think it understates the case, as we are really in a “select your truth” culture.

    As Neo posted some time ago, people want to believe what they want to…

    “The 2012 campaign and election—and then again, even more strongly, this 2016 one—drove home (if it needed any more driving home) the enormous extent of many Americans’ susceptibility to propaganda, their inability (or unwillingness) to think for themselves, their propensity for following not just the lead of others but the thoughts of others on the same side as they. I’m not able to compare numbers between left and right on this.”

    So, yes, there is absolutely no case to be made that another GOP candidate could have done better.

    There is absolutely post-election certainty in what trump was / is going to deliver, not that anyone could, pre-election, convincingly (at least to me, and evidently many others) make the case that there was reason to be as certain then about any policy trump would deliver on, that overcame his mutability.

    Hey, trump won by a “landslide”, which proves he was “brilliant”, and proves all things one wants to attribute about it and to him as “truth”.



    While I see some good signs, I still see persistent signs that counter them.

    We’ll see.

    Next 100 days may well show us the real trump.

    It won’t be a good sign if he proves to remain “unpredictable” (i.e. without some clear indication of direction) across many issues foreign and domestic.

  48. Frog Says:

    What do Trump and Obama have in common? That they both beat Hillary.
    Obama’s ascent to US Senator from the IL Senate was seriously tinged with unacceptable behavior, like pissing away $100 million Annenberg Challenge funds for the Chicago public schools with bomber buddy Bill Ayers. And getting the sealed-by-court-order divorce records of his US Senate GOP opponent, Jack Ryan, made public. And hiding the truth about himself; academic records, etc.

    What did Obama accomplish pre-POTUS? He gave an “electrifying” speech at the 2004 Dem. convention, and he beat Hillary in 2008. That’s pretty much it.

    Unprepared to be President? Obama comes in first. He was a do-nothing US Senator for three years, then POTUS; that got him the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, that and some blathering speeches.

    I apologize for repeating now-old history, but it deserves perspective in the anti-Trump, neverTrump era.

    Trump looks pretty damn good in comparison.

  49. OM Says:

    We shall see, and some will not see. But on a positive note, there are less than 3 days left with BHO as the POTUS.

  50. Artfsldgr Says:


    If you don’t know Diamond and Silk of “The Viewer’s View” YouTube channel, you’re about to be introduced.

    Last week, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) proclaimed he doesn’t consider Donald Trump to be a “legitimate president.” Well, Diamond and Silk have a message for Lewis: if he doesn’t want to work for the American people, who legitimately voted Trump into office on Nov. 8, then he can pack up and leave Washington with Obama.


  51. Yancey Ward Says:


    You seem to concede that any other candidate would have lost those three states, right? Without those three states, Trump loses the electoral college to Clinton 278-260. To win, another Republican candidate would likely have had to flip NH and NV both, while holding onto IA. Not impossible, but I find it unlikely based just on the 2004-2012 presidential elections- both of those states have drifted well away from the Republicans- I think Trump made those states competitive again.

    Had Trump squeezed out the victory in the way I had predicted he would do it- losing WI, PA, and MI, while winning Virginia, I think you could make your case that another Republican would have done better against Clinton, but Clinton’s easy win in VA pretty much seals the fact that VA has drifted too far into the Democratic fold for a Republican to win it who doesn’t win the national vote by 5%+.

    Trump changed the playing field by making other states competitive that Democrats had taken for granted since 1988. Only John Kasich had a prayer of pulling off the feat that Trump did in the Midwest, and Kasich finished behind Cruz in the primaries.

  52. Yancey Ward Says:

    And this reminds me of another person who had the right idea about how a Trump-like candidate could win way before Trump even declared for the race- Steve Sailer.

  53. neo-neocon Says:

    Yancey Ward:

    The thing about arguing over whether another GOP candidate could have won is that such an argument can and probably will go on interminably, because there is no way to settle the question. It is simply a matter of opinion. You think your answer is obviously correct, but others think their answers are correct, and it’s a matter of alternative history and guessing with absolutely no way to know.

    For example, I happen to think that Marco Rubio would have carried all those states and more. He had his own proletarian bona fides, and he also appealed to a lot of Democrats (I know quite a few who would have happily voted for him rather than Hillary, and yet reluctantly voted for her because her opponent was Trump).

    Don’t think that people’s refusal to engage you on the matter means they concede to you. It may just mean they realize it’s an “I’m right!” “No, I’m right!” exchange in which we’re all just guessing. It’s kind of fun to speculate, but that’s about it.

  54. huxley Says:

    The 2016 election looks hard for hindsight and counterfactuals.

    I still consider the Trump victory something of a fluke and I believe other candidates could have done as well or better, but that’s a tough argument to win.

    Nonetheless I would remind Trump supporters that his key victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were razor thin. He won those states by only 78,000 votes out of 13 million.

    It’s not hard for me to imagine that margin disappearing because of something else stupid Trump might have tweeted or some bad news for Hillary (Comey 2, wikileaks, health problems) which did not emerge in time.

    Then we would be have President Hillary and the Obama legacy preserved. All this stuff about Trump’s brilliance and the new Trumpism movement would be fish wrap.

  55. The Other Chuck Says:

    Neo, point taken. You didn’t imply that Moore was brilliant only that he was right in his prediction. Any credit given the slob activates a knee jerk reaction in me.

    Big Mag @7:21 Jan 18, yes to everything you said and quoted, especially your conclusion that “this is not a sustainable win.”

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge