Wednesday, September 28, 2022

About those claims of fascism...

Democrats say every Republican is Hitler... 






The issue at hand is that liberals are just stupid and think every Republican is "Hitler" because they have no clue what Hitler was even about.

Here is the reality:

  • You have one Party that wants central government control at the Federal level with an active Federal Law Enforcement engaged in every level of society INCLUDING labeling local School Parents to be enemies of the state (domestic terrorist) because their political views do not align with that central government. Demonstrators against the current state are arrested and held without bail, while more violent demonstrators who are protesting in favor of the current regime are generally let go without charges.  They want to take away as much power from the States as they can and make sure that nobody is allowed to openly have viewpoints that do not correspond with those of the Federal Government. They will work with law social media and other media to make sure certain beliefs are designated "disinformation" and censored (even information they know is correct). They hate the constitution and especially the bill of rights (because these rights hamper the Government quest to control the citizenship).
  • You have another Party who wants to drain the swamp and reduce the influence of unelected Federal government appointees and give that power back to the citizens and back to the states. They want to stop Government censorship and allow freedom of speech to again be a bedrock principle. They support the constitution and especially support the bill of rights. They believe that local and state governments are more in tune to their own constituents and believe that more power should remain closer to the people as opposed to with the Federal bureaucracy. 
Which of these choices looks more like they are following fascist ideals?

But the biggest problem with the way liberals think about this is that they always want to label people they disagree with as fascists. Not understanding that a "person" cannot really even be a fascist - it takes a larger group to form that. Certainly most fascist states had dictators who were at the center of things. But ultimately it takes more than an individual. The rest of the Government must follow along with that dictator (even if the people do not). Whether it be Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, or whomever. Those dictators controlled the government agencies and the military and ruled over their citizens by brute force.

In fact, a populist leader with a wide range of popular support (even rabid support) can never achieve a state of fascism if that same leader does not enjoy the same popular support within his or her own Government. Donald Trump could never have been a "fascist" considering most of the Federal employees were against him and the FBI and others were openly investigating him, while jailing his associates. You cannot achieve fascism simply by having popular support of the people. In almost all cases, fascists used intimidation and censorship to maintain control "over" the people. If there is a popular uprising against the "state" - that is not any form of fascism (as much as many liberals would like to redefine the word).  

Red wave 2.0??

Democrats are fighting the fights they think they can win, but are they fighting the fights that need fighting? Right now Democrats are offering a two pronged approach to the 2022 midterms. Abortion and pushing the extreme MAGA Republican theme (generally tying them to Jan 6th). While this might be something that excites the small sliver of the ultra-left liberal Democrat, the question is whether or not it resonates with anyone else. Does the American public trust Democrats on Abortion? Sure. Do some people still care about Jan 6th? Sure. But are those really "important" issues for the swing voters who come out and move the needle in the battleground districts?

Every poll that comes out on the subject of what Americans are really concerned about shows that the economy, inflation, crime, and the border are at the top of the heap. Abortion barely hits the top five and sometimes is even lower than that depending on how specific you break up the economic issues. Oh, and while some may still be interested in Jan 6th, almost nobody says it is something that will affect their vote in November. 

So it appears that the Democrats have figured out which issues that they "win" on and are concentrating their entire effort on those subjects. At this point in time Democrats (and liberal advocacy groups) have spent a small fortune on abortion based ads. By some measures, they have spent more money on abortion ads than the GOP and conservatives have spent overall. Meanwhile the rhetoric from top Democrats (such as the President) has been designed to paint the GOP as a Party of extremists who apparently want to use violence to get their way (even as 95% of all political violence comes from the left).  

While this strategy "appears" to have blunted some of the GOP momentum in the polling, that same polling is starting to slip away from the Democrats. I suspect it will slip even further as pollsters move away from the registered voter polls and into the likely voter samples. More importantly, the GOP appears well ahead in the actual competitive districts which is where the election will be determined. 

Right now the GOP is favored to win the House. Depending on who you are watching the projection show that they will squeak by and win a small majority or they have a good chance to win 2-3 dozen seats. The Senate has been a different story. As it stands, RCP (Sean Trende) shows the most likely result to be Republicans picking up two seats. While 538 (Nate Silver) has Democrats with a 68% chance to keep at least 50 seats. Of course in typical Nate Silver form, he (for example) still shows Masto winning in Nevada in spite of not leading in a poll since the middle of August. Silver has stubbornly remained biased as a projectionist.  
 
Time will tell how this works out for the Democrats. But it appears that they have conceded the fights that they probably need to fight and are taking the approach that they would rather fight the fights that they can win (without much concern for if winning those fights will matter). 

Tuesday, September 27, 2022

Look what is happening at the border!!

I am not quite sure why this doesn't outrage the media - I know it did four years ago!


Wallace still floundering?

Left FOX because he wanted to do something he was more politically aligned with! Btw... Trey Gowdy has a show at the same time with more than triple the audience.

Monday, September 26, 2022

Harris Harvard Poll shows something interesting...

 This is an interesting counterintuitive statistic 




So one would think (of course) that women would be more apt than men to want to allow late term abortions. But as it stands, the vast majority of American want abortion to be limited to under 15 weeks or otherwise only allowed in cases of rape or incest. 

And apparently men (not women) are more inclined to want to allow abortions beyond 15 weeks (31% to 25%). Who would have known? 

I suspect that many of the men are simply virtue signalling here. Trying to make themselves appear woke and in tune with what women want, when in the end they are just pandering for pandering sake. But what do pro-choice women (and pro-choice men) really want? Seems many just want to complain about pro-lifers and not much else

But more to the point, who understand the "labels" that are thrown out there. Pro-choice vs Pro-life? What does it even mean? We would obviously consider someone who believes 23-26 weeks is the correct time to ban abortions as "pro-choice" since that was what Roe and Casey basically established and pro-choicers love Roe and Casey. We know someone who wants to ban it at 6 weeks (or fetal heartbeat) to be pro-life... since that has been what has been pushed in many red states. 

But are you pro-choice or pro-life if you want to allow abortions prior to 15 weeks, but ban them after 15 weeks? I suspect that many people would argue that both ways. 

This is the sad pathetic world we live in

Facebook ‘silencing’ activity related to FBI whistleblower Steve Friend
More evidence of how vindictive, obsessive and downright sinister Facebook is: Now it appears to be monitoring private messages and suppressing material related to the whistleblower complaint of heroic FBI special agent Steve Friend.
After Friend’s bombshell revelations last week in a whistleblower complaint to the Department of Justice inspector general, his cause received an avalanche of public and private support, including from former FBI agents and conservative groups.
On Sunday, Friend’s wife’s Facebook account was suspended after she responded to an offer of support from a local chapter of Moms for Liberty (M4L), a conservative group that advocates for parental rights.
About 30 minutes later, Mrs. Friend received a notification from Facebook that her account had been suspended because the “account, or activity on it, doesn’t follow our Community Standards.”

Up until our world turned topsy turvy and long standing American values were shunned by the new extreme left, whistleblowers were given a promise of protection. In fact it was considered illegal to actually punish someone for being a whistleblower. A company who retaliated in any manner would be facing serious consequences. Now, the left believes it it necessary to punish someone for exposing the sad truth of many of these things. You know, because it disrupts their ability to push a fake narrative and control all of the conversations. 

This is the world that the left wants to live in... as long as they control it. But if American political history has taught us one thing. What comes around goes around. Who knows how long the left will hold the power in all of this. Watch for all the meltdowns as they lose control. Look no further than the Twitter sale to Elon Musk.


Sunday, September 25, 2022

Here is an interesting viewpoint on the midterm congressional polling...

This morning I saw that RCP replaced the ABC/WaPo "registered voter" poll results of +1% for GOP with the "likely voter" model result of +5% for the GOP.  That was a four point swing towards the Republicans just by looking at the more historically accurate sample. Makes you wonder if there would be a similar swing of RV polls were switched to Likely voter samples. So I just broke it down.

Overall voter congressional polling from RCP

Polling Data

PollDateSampleDemocrats (D)Republicans (R)Spread
RCP Average9/6 - 9/22--45.344.9Democrats +0.4 
ABC News/Wash Post9/18 - 9/21LV4651Republicans +5
Emerson9/20 - 9/211368 LV4545Tie
Rasmussen Reports9/18 - 9/222500 LV4244Republicans +2
Economist/YouGov9/17 - 9/201318 RV4540Democrats +5
Politico/Morn Consult9/16 - 9/182005 RV4641Democrats +5
NBC News9/9 - 9/131000 RV4646Tie
FOX News9/9 - 9/121201 RV4441Democrats +3
NY Times/Siena9/6 - 9/141399 RV4644Democrats +2
Trafalgar Group (R)9/7 - 9/91081 LV4248Republicans +6
Harvard-Harris9/7 - 9/81885 RV5149Democrats +2
Registered voter congressional polling

Polling Data

PollDateSampleDemocrats (D)Republicans (R)Spread
RCP Average9/6 - 9/22--45.344.9Democrats +2.8  
Economist/YouGov9/17 - 9/201318 RV4540Democrats +5
Politico/Morn Consult9/16 - 9/182005 RV4641Democrats +5
NBC News9/9 - 9/131000 RV4646Tie
FOX News9/9 - 9/121201 RV4441Democrats +3
NY Times/Siena9/6 - 9/141399 RV4644Democrats +2
Harvard-Harris9/7 - 9/81885 RV5149Democrats +2
Likely voter congressional polling

Polling Data

PollDateSampleDemocrats (D)Republicans (R)Spread
RCP Average9/6 - 9/22--45.344.9Republicans 3.3  
ABC News/Wash Post9/18 - 9/21LV4651Republicans +5
Emerson9/20 - 9/211368 LV4545Tie
Rasmussen Reports9/18 - 9/222500 LV4244Republicans +2
Trafalgar Group (R)9/7 - 9/91081 LV4248Republicans +6
Now people have long suggested that pollsters like Rasmussen and Trafalgar are biased towards the GOP. Could it have really nothing to do with "bias" and way more to do with the fact that they are pretty much always working with "likely voter" samples versus "registered voter" samples most pollsters use? Because it has been historically the case that the former are always more favorable to Republicans, while the latter is more favorable to Democrats. 

So that can become sort of a chicken vs the egg argument. Is Rasmussen and Trafalgar really more favorable to the GOP because of bias or simply because they use likely voter samples which has a built in favorability to Republicans. Is the really these two pollster, or the idea of the likely voter poll that upsets the left.

The difference between the two samples is 6.1%  as the registered is 2.8 +D while the likely is 3.3 +R. This is more than the 4% swing that the ABC/WaPo poll showed, so it would appear that there might be more than just the type of sample involved. But at the end of the day the lionshare of this difference is really how far you want to parse out the voter intentions. In the ABC/WaPo poll the difference appeared nominal (about 75% of Democrats versus 80% of Republicans were considered "motivated" to vote) but even that 5%  can make a difference of 2-3 points by itself. One must have to also look at independents and leaners to find similar intentions, and there are other factors. 

I expect more and more pollsters to switch to the likely voter model in the coming weeks and I would similarly expect some movement towards the GOP as they do.

Sunday Funnies

Sorry this is late - got left in a draft status and never published




Saturday, September 24, 2022

Political rhetoric at it's worst or finest depending on your viewpoint...

An honest description of Lindsey Graham's abortion bill (legal within 15 weeks) would resonate as a popular compromise with a majority of Americans



So where do American stand? 
  • Legal past 15 weeks - 28%
  • Not legal past 15 weeks - 72% 
In other words, the Lindsey Graham proposal would be considered favored by over 70% of Americans. So what do Democrats do? They demand that Lindsey Graham's abortion bill is a "ban" on abortion. They repeat the lie over and over and over. That is quite literally a blatant dishonest rhetorical argument that only has a chance to be successful if nobody actually questions them on it.

Earlier this week, the White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was questioned by reporters on what the Biden administration stance actually was? If they are not in favor of 15 weeks, at what point in the pregnancy would they be willing to put a stop to it? Obviously with only 10% of the population in favor of abortion till birth, the White House (and Democrats) owe the American public an explanation as to what they would accept? If not 15 how about 23 weeks? 30 weeks? When is the acceptable time to say abortions should no longer take place? 

Seems like a fair question. But Jean-Pierre was unwilling to answer, likely because neither the White House or Democrats are going to be willing to go on record here. They would rather attack the GOP over what would be a popular proposal by basically misleading the public on it.  Dishonesty and disinformation is all they have left at this point.

Legacy blog - new theme

Because the only reason people were not going over there was the white text on black background!