Is there evidence for a “monster” Trump vote?
A reader kindly sent me a link to this article at American Thinker by Thomas Lifson, which gives some hope to Trump supporters that the so-called “Monster vote” for Trump may be emerging. Lifson bases his piece on this post at the admittedly and unabashedly pro-Trump Conservative Treehouse.
Lifson writes:
The principal electoral strategy of Donald Trump has been the bet that non-voters in recent elections will turn out, with some of them registering to vote for the first time. This is jokingly known as the “Monster Vote,” both because of its size and because the elites look down their noses at many of this demographic cohort. Existing models of the electorate used by most polls do not account for these hypothetical voters, which is the comfort Trump supporters offer one another in the face of unceasing negative news and media attacks.
This “Monster Vote” hope is another sign of a campaign that’s behind (in addition to the signs I’ve already described here). But just because a hope is hopeful doesn’t mean it’s not true and won’t pan out, and I suppose this one could. And the Conservative Treehouse piece indicates there is actual evidence that it might indeed be true, based on the fact that a great many of the voters in the upcoming Florida primary are people who have never before voted in a primary.
Here’s what the Treehouse has to say:
Throughout this entire year there have been indications the “Monster Vote” is very real, but you have to look carefully to see them ”“ and, obviously, you must inoculate yourself from conformational bias…
It’s a tenuous discussion because everyone wants to belittle anyone talking about it…
Well, the left-leaning Tampa Bay Times has just dropped a big bit of data which seems to also confirm the existence of this phenomenon:
“More than 25% of the inbound mail-in or absentee ballots in the upcoming primary, have NEVER VOTED BEFORE“:”¦
The article goes on to say that if this holds true for other states, it’s encouraging for Trump and the Monster Vote. The information in the Treehouse piece is in turn based almost entirely on this article in the Tampa Bay Times. Here are some quotes that the Treehouse offers from the Tampa Bay article [emphasis the Treehouse’s]:
“This is huge,” said Marian Johnson, senior vice president of political strategy for the Florida Chamber and one of the foremost experts on Florida campaigns and politics. “I can envision election night when the votes are counted that certain people win that nobody thought had a chance, and that being attributed to this trend.”
As of Thursday morning, more than 855,000 primary ballots had been cast by mail. More than a quarter of those votes came from Floridians who had not voted in the last four primaries and another 20 percent from people who voted in just one of the last four primaries.
In other words, these are not “likely voters” surveyed by most pollsters or targeted by sophisticated political campaigns. The trend applies to Democrats and Republicans alike and across the state, said Johnson, who was shocked when she first spotted the trend developing weeks ago.
Well, I did something pretty novel—I read the entire Tampa Bay Times article. And I discovered quite a few things that the Treehouse had left out.
First of all, notice that these are people who haven’t voted in the last four primaries. There are plenty of people who vote in general elections who don’t ever vote in primaries; primary turnout is generally a lot lower than in the general. So this could easily be tapping into the phenomenon of people who regularly vote in regular elections but not in primaries.
And in fact, the Tampa Bay newspaper article actually states that fact, and I quote: “The vast majority of these ‘new’ primary voters are regular general election voters already, Johnson said.”
Let me repeat: the newspaper article stated that the vast majority of these new primary voters are not new voters at all, they are merely new to the primaries in Florida.
Secondly, these are both Democrats and Republicans (this is something the Treehouse piece does acknowledge). They could be every bit as motivated to vote against Trump as for him.
Thirdly, they are voting in a state primary that has little or nothing to do with the presidential election. The Florida primary involved is being held on August 30 (that’s today), and it is a state primary emphasizing state offices, as well as for nominees to the US Congress, and has nothing to do with the presidential race. This is another fact that would be easy to miss from the Treehouse piece, which indicates that the primary is a Florida primary, but doesn’t say what the primary is deciding.
Fourthly, there are several simple explanations for the upsurge in registrations of voters in the state primary in Florida. They are stated in the Tampa Bay newspaper article, and are also left out of the Treehouse piece. Here’s the quote from the newspaper:
The Republican-leaning chamber started targeting these infrequent primary voters several weeks ago…[L]ocal elections supervisors increasingly are promoting and encouraging people to vote by mail. It’s more convenient for voters, less expensive to manage than in-person early voting, and the more people who vote before election day, the less likely polling places are to be overwhelmed.The combination of Floridians automatically receiving mail ballots and the media focusing constant attention on the presidential election seems to be prompting more people to weigh in on the primary elections that usually generate far lower turnout than the general election.
It really doesn’t seem to be much of a mystery what’s going on here. The state has been targeting and encouraging voters to participate in primaries more than they have before (primaries so far have generally been very low turnout), as well as sending them ballots in the mail to facilitate the process. So it makes perfect sense that more of them are going to decide to vote in the primaries who may not have done so before. Plus, keep remembering that these are new primary voters, not new voters in terms of the general.
You can draw your own conclusions about why Treehouse left out this information. I think it’s one of two things. Either they are aware of the information and are hiding it, or it’s a form of what they themselves warned against: confirmation bias. People sometimes stop reading an article once they’ve found the evidence they think backs up their own point of view and their own hopes, and they miss the information that would go against what they want to believe.
As for Lifson, who is a writer I respect, my guess is that he was reading the Treehouse piece and reporting on it.
At any rate, as far as the Monster Vote goes, I started out by saying it could happen, and that’s still true. But it’s a construct based on hope, with little or no evidentiary foundation at this point.
Keep hope alive!
LA Times poll shows Trump in the lead.
Maybe 20% still undecided.
And in those emails is Hillary’s blue dress. Count on it!
I see no definitive evidence that there is a monster vote for Trump waiting for election day. I see plenty of circumstantial evidence that there is the potential for a monster vote for Trump on election day.
There have been repeated reports of widespread panic by the public when false alarms occur of gunshots fired at public venues like airports, evidence of deep anxiety being suppressed in the public’s subconscious.
Then there are the drip, drip, drip revelations about the Clinton’s that keep emerging, such as the just revealed video of Bill Clinton speaking of restoring Detroit through the importation of Syrian refugees…
These are like straws on the camels back, no one can say the one that can break the back of Hillary’s campaign. But that there is a limit (however distant) to majority support for Hillary is not in question.
The thought of those two criminals back in the White House sickens me.
I know I have written it here, but the two of them are immune from impeachment and the criminal law. Not good.
The quote uses the term “conformational bias”, not “confirmation bias”. I’ve never heard that term before, and neither has Google, but I’d assume it means a type of confirmation bias which skews toward the conventional wisdom. Actually, a pretty useful term.
All this kind of stuff matters only in very close elections and the Democrats are much better at raising the dead and near dead than the GOP.
Donald has laid the groundwork for explaining away his defeat due to “rigging” so he must not feel the ground move his way.
The real crime in this election is the electorate. No one is ready to make the changes or sacrifices to fix things. That’s why we got Hillary and Trump tossing coins to the spectators. The Trump supporters will be astonished at how many in the GOP will stay home or vote Hillary if they conclude Trump is erratic. I’m voting Johnson just to say a voted for someone fairly honest.
In a time of monster candidates every vote is a monster vote.
Dirtyjobsguy,
In 1992, I reluctantly voted for Ross Perot. Back then I too resisted the proposition that I was actually assisting in the election of Bill Clinton. I cast my vote in principle and good conscience and got Clinton. History may well repeat itself.
I considered voting for Johnson. But the sad fact of the matter is that the Libertarians this time around are just another flavor of Democrat (as I suspect Trump very much still is). So I am, reluctantly, probably going to vote for the Republican candidate.
Of course, since I live in California, it’s unlikely that I’ll be voting for anyone who casts an actual electoral vote.
parker beat me to it: both candidates are monsters, so the monster vote will be effectively split.
And, in 1944, the Germans had wonder weapons just about to come out of the factory door.
OTOH, it doesn’t need to be a monster vote, just enough so they can’t cheat.
As of today there is no evidence that Hillary is even close to Trump in support even without the Monster Vote beyond media driven polls where some are going as far as having +15 dems sampled, have to be insane to not see just how skewed against Trump the polls have been.
“Wishing and hoping and thinking and praying
Planning and dreamng each night of his charms
That won’t get you into his arms.”
Patrick,
Just ask Dusty, she knows.
Patrick: Yeah, just like the polls were skewed against Romney. Been there, done that, got Obama.
Patrick:
We can say you’re a dreamer
And you’re not the only one…
Trump is in Everett, WA tonight. Everett is the home of Boeing’s main plant in Puget Sound. I sense that his pollsters have gotten favorable readings from union members there. I doubt that there are enough crossover union rank and file votes here to overcome the overwhelming progressive vote in Puget Sound. On ‘tother hand, if the east side of the state (Very GOP, but lightly populated) goes very heavy for Trump and the usual Democrat union rank and file vote crosses over to Trump instead of Hillary, it might be a close contest here. That’s the only reason I can see why Trump would show up here in deep blue Washington. Probably wishful thinking. It would seem his time and money would be best spent in the battleground states. Particularly those with large blue collar populations. Those are his most loyal supporters.
There’s an interesting contrast to be seen in Seattle sports venues. The pro football team, the Seahawks, attracts a primarily blue collar sort of fan. In contrast, the soccer team, the Sounders, attracts a mostly yuppie type fan. I doubt there are many fans that attend both teams games. To watch the crowds in the stands is such a study in tribalism. And human nature. The two differing fan bases look almost like they come form different planets. Yes, it’s that noticeable. The soccer fans are progressives and the football fans are all probably Republicans or libertarians.
Those who think Trump is going to win can get quite good odds in the betting markets, now. (As I write, Betfair gives him about a 23 percent chance of becoming president.)
When the folks at Treehouse, and other backers of that Bill Clinton Democrat, Donald H. F. Trump, tell us how much they have bet, I will take them more seriously.
(There are legal ways to bet on the election here, at the Iowa business school, for instance, and it might be legal for Trump supporters to visit Europe, place a bet, and then go back there to collect. Consult a lawyer before doing so, however.)
I suppose I am a bit peeved because Trump is coming to Washington state tomorrow to hold a rally, and do some fund raising.
Republicans here in Washington have been making small but steady gains since 2006, and now control the state senate. I had been hoping for more gains but see them as much less likely with Trump leading the ticket.
The rally will hurt our chances here. And, as most of you know, he has no hope of carrying the state. Last I looked, he was down by 20 points, or so.
My mother, a long time Democrat voter now in her eighties, today tells me she is going to vote for Trump because he told Colin Kaepernick that if he didnt like it here, he could move somewhere else. Of course, there’s plenty of time in which my mom could change her mind as she’s fairly prone to media thought obedience measures, but I guess I can see how a Hillary voter might be driven to change their minds.
When it comes to believing/not believing the polls, the 2012 election was a real wake-up call for me. I am reluctant to get burned again, so to speak. Not to mention the fact that it’s difficult to summon the mental energy to actually hope for, or believe in, a Trump victory.
However, all of that said, I am leaning ever so gingerly toward rolling the dice and pulling the lever for Trump, because I simply can’t vote for Hillary nor can I ignore the ramifications on the Supreme Court should she win.
I can scarcely admit this to myself, let alone anyone else (even inside my own family), and I certainly wouldn’t admit it to a pollster. Surely I am not alone.
One unmentioned (here) factor: the Democratic-voting uninformed idiots who know nothing and prefer knowing nothing and avoid knowing anything (think DNC chair Brazile saying: to them “There is no smoke.”)
What if they take a serious look at the news a week before the election? Could they skip the “President” box and vote the straight Democratic ticket otherwise, in order to avoid personal responsibility?
Just sayin’
Drudge has 3 noteworthy articles up:
DHS is considering taking charge of elections.
A candidate’s death could delay or eliminate the Presidential election.
Reuters poll: Clinton and Trump all tied up.
Since Trump shut his trap after that disastrous week following the RNC, his Nate Silver 538 forecast has recovered more than ten points. It’s now 77.5-22.5%.
This election reminds me of 1972, when Americans voted overwhelmingly for Nixon, whom everyone knew to be a crook, but they believed he wasn’t crazy and wouldn’t rock the boat too much.
They didn’t trust McGovern — the acid, amnesty and abortion candidate — who looked like a real leap into the unknown and after the often violent wildness of the sixties they weren’t in the mood to see what the McGovern door led to.
Of course this comparison is unfair to McGovern, a genuinely decent, honest man compared to Trump, a lying, vicious con artist, who has convinced a substantial number of Americans that he is too crazy to be president.
Barring events, Hillary will run out the clock while Trump strives to convince enough Americans he isn’t crazy.
I eagerly await a landslide Trump loss, just so we can stop pretending to care what the alt-right says is newsworthy.
GB,
DHS is a real monster, thank you GWB, and would happily take control of a national election. But that would be a SHTF moment. DC is utterly stupid to believe that passes the smell test. Unintended Consequences time.The other drudge links are Alex Jones stuff.
Matt_SE,
We are on the same page, the larger the djt loss, the better For it appears he ill lose with perhaps 150 EC at the most. .
You will have to take a look at the vote totals tomorrow, and compare them to 2008 and 2012. At that point, one might be able to make more informed analyses.
However, just on the increases in new and newly active voters for the primary itself, it is encouraging for Trump in my opinion. Sure, a lot of them will be new Democrats, but ask yourself this- which side has the most enthusiasm? During the presidential primaries, until after Indiana, that was the Republican side by a sizeable margin.
Again, though, vote totals in the morning should tell you something.
Jim, if Trump loses by 20 points in November, all those Washington state elections you care about will be lost. You should want Trump fighting for the state. I just don’t understand the mentality of the NeverTrump brigade. Like it or not, he is the top of the ticket, and the rest of the slate depends on him doing well, or at least not getting blown out in state after state. Complaining about him rallying in Washington is a self-defeating attitude.
“One unmentioned (here) factor: the Democratic-voting uninformed idiots who know nothing and prefer knowing nothing and avoid knowing anything (think DNC chair Brazile saying: to them “There is no smoke.”)” – NB2
I think we can now safely stop pointing exclusively to the left for that kind of behavior, as one could argue right back that it seems there may well be plenty on the right too.
This type of generalization is where we run into trouble, and is part of the “we” vs “they” mindset, which isolates us into our tribal circles.
Haven’t seen much good come out of that approach.
“This election reminds me of 1972, when Americans voted overwhelmingly for Nixon, whom everyone knew to be a crook, but they believed he wasn’t crazy and wouldn’t rock the boat too much. “ – huxley
Right.
Chaos (and corruption) vs Corruption.
http://neoneocon.com/2016/03/21/gop-convention-delegates-bound-and-unbound/#comment-1016329
Chaos loses every time.
Just looked at the Florida primary for the Senate- statewide races in both parties, and the Republican vote was 300,000 more than that in the Democratic primary with 98% of the precincts counted- 1.4 million vs 1.1 million. And the Democratic race was more competitive, though neither race was really in doubt based on the last polling results I saw from late July.
Yancey Ward:
I know you don’t agree with what Jim Miller said, but I don’t see how you could fail to understand what he’s saying. I believe that he’s saying he thinks that Trump is so noxious that his campaigning for the other GOP candidates will hurt their chances of election rather than help them.
I don’t even know whether Jim is a neverTrumper; I don’t pay attention to the exact position of everyone who comments here. But nothing in that comment of his indicated that’s his stance. His position seemed pretty clear to me: he thinks Trump will hurt the chances of the other GOP candidates in the state of Washington, and that’s why he wishes he would stay away.
I feel your pain. 😉
By the way, as I’m writing this, Trump is delivering a terrific speech in Everett, Washington.
The same election in 2012 had about the same gross advantage for Republicans, but with what will be about 700000 less total votes in both. However, the reverse was true in 2012- it was the Democrats with an incumbent Senator and the Republican primary was the competitive one.
But if DJT has only 150 in the Electoral College how can it be the fault of Ted Cruz and those of conscience? It will be the greatest of all mysteries. Or not.
The Trump effect hosing WA for Republicans/conservatives is particularly irksome. Does Trump remember that he lost WA to Cruz, so long ago?
Big Maq and huxley:
I don’t recall that in 1972 everyone knew Nixon was “a crook.” I actually don’t know what you’re referring to. I was around and remember that election quite well, and that was not my impression at all.
The Watergate break-in had occurred, the burglars had been caught but not yet tried, and the involvement of the higher-ups was unknown at the time. What are you referring to? Nixon was quite popular during his first term in office.
His “I am not a crook” statement occurred in November of 1973, long after the election.
Sheesh, Neo, either Republicans show up in November and ticket split and save the downticket races, or a lot of them stay home because the top of the ticket is going to get crushed. I understood perfectly his complaint, and his complaint is simply asinine and self-defeating. The NeverTrump brigade is seemingly on a mission to lose the down ticket races because they are telling everyone the top of the ticket is toast, even going so far as wanting Trump to stay away and lose the damned state by even more than Jim thinks he is going to.
Remember, most voters aren’t political animals- if they hear over and over how even their own party leaders think the presidential race is lost, a good percentage of them won’t even show up on Election Day to split tickets. It is one thing for them to think this based on polls nationally, it is quite another for party stalwarts to be telling them this. I simply don’t understand this defeatist attitude, even if one thinks Trump would make a lousy president.
There has been one recent poll in Washington state, the Elway poll. In that poll, Hillary Clinton was leading Trump 43-24.
The best thing Trump can do for Republicans here is to go away and stay away.
That would give, for instance, Bill Bryant a better chance of taking out Jay Inslee.
2016 Senate primaries Republican votes 1.4 million, Democrats 1.1 million- 2.5 million overall.
2012 Senate primaries- Republican votes 1.2 million, Democrats 0.9 million- 2.1 million overall.
Seems to have about 20% more voters this year overall, though there is no way to tell the number who voted in both.
parker,
Not if DHS is smart about how it goes about it.
What would happen if three days before the election, Trump is assassinated or Hillary has a massive stroke?
A Reuters poll is Alex Jones stuff?
Jim,
If he stayed away completely, Republican turnout in Washington will be depressed. Even Romney didn’t stay away even though he had no chance to win Washington in 2012. You should be wanting Trump to close that gap, not let it fester or worsen. Whatever detrimental effect you think he could have on the state elections by showing up is much smaller than the positive he could bring by campaigning in the state a few days before November.
People often ask why presidential candidates spend time campaigning in states they have no chance of winning- that is why- they still need voters to show up just for the down-ticket races. Trump is no different in this regard, even if you think he is a lousy candidate- you want as many people showing up the vote for him in November as possible, even if he still loses Washington by 15%+.
Yancey Ward:
I don’t see how this primary tells us anything about the presidential voting in November.
And I would say the same thing whether it was Trump or Romney or Joe Schmo running for president. I don’t see any carryover from a Senate primary and state office primary vote to the presidential election, especially since these primary voters are not new voters in the general.
A Senate primary race generates enthusiasm for a host of reasons mainly having to do with the candidates running. I don’t see any correlation with enthusiasm in the presidential race in general, or in one candidate over another. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
By the way, the voter turnout for this primary was 23.77% in Florida. In terms of competitive races in this primary, it was the state legislative races that were hotly competitive, according to the article, not the Senate races. There’s a lot of local politics involved here; read the article.
Re: Nixon’s 1972 election, neo’s recollection is mine as well. I’d just turned 24 in Nov. of 72. Nixon’s trip to China in Feb. of 72 brought him great acclaim.
Big_Maq @10:44,
Are you suggesting that Hillary is simply about corruption? If so, that explains your position. If not, then why are the forces behind her, apparently of such little concern?
Those who don’t live in WA telling us, who do, what they “know” about local issues. Prescient /s Not.
The first Presidential election I remember was 1984. And that is arguably the last time there was such universal consensus across the chattering classes and other elites that the election was over…before Labor Day. And it was far more justified: a popular incumbent, riding the wave of an economic recovery, against a hapless challenger who was an embodiment of the prior, failed, administration.
It is truly astonishing to witness such a collective presumption of electoral results more than two months before the election (1) based almost entirely on traditional polling methodology and algorithms and concomitant averaging. (2) Democrats and Never Trumpers insist, often quite smugly, their conclusion is based on reason and careful analysis. For most, it is not. Poll numbers are largely post hoc rationalizations. Most Democrats (and various and sundry other lefties) and Never Trumpers are just as emotive and visceral in their conclusions as the most ardent Trumper.
I cannot help but ponder a counterfactual. Suppose the entire fact pattern were reversed? Suppose Trump was ahead in most national polls and in most swing states? Suppose polls also showed him within striking range of a few reliably blue states like New Jersey? Suppose the 538 blog had Trump at about a 70% chance of winning? BUT…Hillary repeatedly and consistently drew massive crowds, even in unfriendly areas, and there was a significant spurt of new voters, even just based on primary turnout?
Under such a scenario, Would Democrats and Never Trumpers conclude Trump is a heavy favorite or, even further, the election is all but “over”. I highly doubt it. They would likely be relying on much the same arguments and indulgences the Trumpers are.
For many Democrats and especially Never Trumpers, their conclusion seems to boil down to an inversion of Anselm’s ontological argument. They cannot envision Trump winning in their imagination, therefore it must not be possible in reality. All evidence, pro or con, is accepted/propagated or rejected/scorned based on that premise.
I await the trolling and outrage. 🙂
1. I am well aware of the issue of early voting and how poll numbers now can affect this demographic. I would like to see research on the nature and inclinations of early voters. Common sense suggests a disproportionate amount of these voters are steadfast in their support, suggesting the would not change their vote were they to vote on election day. Thus, the impact of polls, events, gaffes or pretty much anything is unlikely to be of much relevance. If anyone could point me to statistics on early voters regret or change of heart, I’d love to review it.
2. At its most base, it often seems to come down to “538 said Trump’s going to lose. So, he’s going to lose”. First, 538 does not say that and never will. It’s all about probability. Second, neither it nor any other polling average is infallible, particularly if we are experiencing a paradigm shift in presidential psephology. We might be (just “might”) be experiencing such a shift and the “Monster Vote” may be a portent of the same.
Ackler:
If the numbers were reversed, I would absolutely think Trump would almost certainly win.
I cannot stand Trump, but I’m not a neverTrumper. In fact, there are very few neverTrumpers here; just a couple.
I discounted the idea that crowd size and enthusiasm had any meaning in terms of who will win, way back in 2012 when Romney (the candidate I favored) was drawing huge crowds. I cautioned against thinking it meant he would win, although I very much wanted him to win.
And no one here has been simplistically saying they believe Trump will lose because 538 says so.
I believe he will lose because the average of all the polls over time has indicated it very consistently and outside the margin of error, and especially the state polls that determine the electoral college vote. I have also never said it’s in the bag for Hillary. I just give Trump a very small chance of turning it around. That could change with some very dramatic and unforeseen event, of course.
No Ackler, I will not ‘troll’ your post or be outraged. I see what you see and in the fog we both see dimly.
I do not take polls all that seriously, not that there is anything wrong with polls, per se, but rather that the pollsters have worked out how to word the poll, and where to take it, so as to get the results desired by the people paying for it.
I don’t know. I’m sensing a little different feeling in the air than the vast majority of commenters in this thread. I think the MSM may be overplaying their hand with their obvious bias against Trump. Every headline that he’s in seems to have some insult — which means why read the story? — which insults our collective intelligence over and over again by the assumption we can’t get the point or make up our own minds. It’s similar to how political wears out its welcome — yet no one when polled is going to dare say anything against, say, Black Lives Matter even if we despise them. There’s still a lot of time left before the election. An upset isn’t an upset if everyone sees it coming.
I mean to say “political correctness” above.
neo–wrt Nixon the crook in 1972. It’s like the “decade of greed”. The libs have rewritten history so that everybody knows….something. Even those who lived in that era, as I did, have to recheck their memories against conventional (manufactured) wisdom.
Besides pollsters doing whatever they do to skew the results, I submit, as I have before, that this time is different.
Two items: No database is secure. Some state’s fishing license records just got hacked. The IRS has not told 1 million people their SSAN have been stolen.
From time to time, a state will accidentally release a couple of hundred thousand records of…
Washington State accidentally released records of pot license applicants.
GA, Sos 3.8 million voters’ private information–and why should a state have your private information? This stuff goes on. Fishing licenses?????
So first point is, nobody believes any promise of anonymity. Even if the promiser meant it, which isn’t likely, it’s meaningless.
Second point, see the ex CEO of Mozilla who lost his job for supporting traditional family marriage issues. Big name, little name, the activists look as if they’ll come for you. Your job, your reputation. MO released, against the law, gun owner records. Nobody knows what that will mean for them.
A poll showing 44% of US households own a firearm had a number of comments on a thread. As in, I would never admit it. I’d hang up if asked. I rolled my canoe and both my AR15 were lost; that’s what I’d tell them.
I have no idea of the actual numbers or the skewing this may cause, but I submit it is, due to the times, potentially far more powerful than the Bradley Effect or the Shy Tory thing.
I began to get Trump effect when in the Florida primary, Trump won every district except the district Rubio lived in. Prior to the primary the advertising was 24/7 anti Trump and effective advertising, actual quotes,videos etc. that should have doomed him.Rubio being a favored son in Florida. There was no way Trump should beat Rubio and he crushed him. (BTW I was a Cruz supporter,then never Trump, and now I get it!!!!)
He will destroy Hilliary, there is a monster vote and it’s coming.
I don’t recall that in 1972 everyone knew Nixon was “a crook.” I actually don’t know what you’re referring to. I was around and remember that election quite well, and that was not my impression at all.
neo: We may have gone to different schools together.
Clearly not “everyone” knew Nixon was a “crook.” Everyone is absolute and the term “crook” came later in Watergate as you point out.
That said, in the liberal, Catholic, and beatnik worlds I inhabited back then, Nixon was generally reviled as untrustworthy.
He had been known as “Tricky Dicky” since 1950 for red-baiting Helen Gahaghan Douglas in the Senate race that year. Then there was his notorious “Checkers Speech” which Nixon was forced to give after being accused of financial improprieties with campaign funds in 1952.
The political cartoons showed him squinty-eyed and furtive. Much had been made of Nixon’s pale, sweaty appearance (due to a recent case of flu) in his 1960 debate with JFK.
Perhaps my impression is exaggerated, but I did have the sense most people knew Nixon was not Eisenhower, that there was something unsavory and untrusworthy about him. Maybe not enough to believe Nixon was capable of what was later revealed in Watergate, but in my circles there was little surprise.
Make that Tricky Dick, not Tricky Dicky. Sometimes my typing gets carried away.
And what will control the monster(s) after the voting is done?
I don’t consider 538 as gospel, just damn good.
Silver called not only the results of the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections but he got 99 out of 100 state results right too. Since the president is elected on electoral votes, the latter successes are most impressive.
huxley.
What you list regarding Nixon is correct, but the point is that the libs backdated the later issues.
Mark Levin’s program from yesterday started with the “monster vote” with a lead in that Trump supporters a now hoping that it is true and will save DJT.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/marklevinshow/MLAR/~5/diaGnfSf0VI/4993932-8-30-16-mark-levin-audio-rewind.mp3
Levin has a pretty low regard for the Conservative Treehouse BTW, but may vote for DJT in the end.
I don’t actually know who will win. I find it hard to believe that HRC can win, but also know there is a lot of opposition to DJT. I won’t vote for either.
Someone upthread noted “enthusiasm” as an indicator. This is hard to measure. Yes, Trump is getting big crowds at rallies. But I’ve never seen a Republican candidate with such a large percentage of people who are planning on voting for him in the “hold your nose” category. In this space, for instance, even people arguing strongly that we should vote for Trump are using words to describe him such as “awful”, “totalitarian”, etc.
I don’t believe you can win an election without a critical mass of enthusiastic voters. “He’s not her” is not a winning campaign slogan (or maybe it is, in this very weird year with such an awful set of candidates).
I’m staying out of the “polls are wrong” argument, other than to agree with neo that that is basically the way losers talk. At least it always has been – we haven’t had a “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment in 68 years. But, again, what a weird year we’re in.
I wouldn’t count on monster votes, though. There are plenty of people very motivated by fear of Trump winning. They are going to vote. Perhaps it’s a wash.
This “Monster Vote” hope is another sign of a campaign that’s behind (in addition to the signs I’ve already described here).
no, it isnt… Reagan was reported right up to his landslide victory to be behind… i even detailed the points by date to show that this was what the press did..
so right again. your perception of the world has to do with the mix of what you see, read and hear and everyone sees and hears a different mix of reality and leftist fantasy
so how do you know what the actual condition of something is when the bias is 25 points to the left and you think thats the center?
its like always working with a device in which its gone off and no check to bring it back to center and calibrate it is being used.
think hard on that..
most peoples devices in a liberal news state have random levels of wrong calibrations
and unlike soviets who learned what to look for or not over time to glean a calibrated truth, i have complained that people here bitch about the lies and then in the same breath refer to the same news organization to tell the truth in another area in which they are also lying
who was right?
All the people who read and believed Walter Duranty??
The people who didnt and believed Holodomar is real and knew from family, friends, etc.
realize that Walt reported for a world that never existed… in HIS world, Holodomar didnt happen, the people didnt starve and Stalin didnt sell their food for money to the west… that world never existed.
take walter duranty, and then copy or clone him into the thousands… till you get this:
Facebook is trying to get rid of bias in Trending news by getting rid of humans
facebook fired their trending news team…
the whole group… why? they buried conservative news and results they did not like..
that means that everyone reading facebook and using that wrong calibrated news was reading news for a world that doesnt exist… never has and never will
so what about trump? well, how much of a skew is there compared to say romney… to quote trump HUUUGE… so much so that heavy left sites are congratulating themselves for starting the false alt-right argument… you did know it wasnt real, did you? but once it was created in myth, it happened in reality… just as the white supremecists in america hate blacks when their hero hitler complimented them and did not exterminate them (remember? north african campagn? he didnt extgerminate them because marx and engels didnt say they had to be extgerminated… duh)
the left reports news the way they want it to be not the way it is… and its only tempered by how far they can twist without being so obvious that they are not heard… they favor arguments for consumption and using collusion to create the false illusion of consensus
consensus is a false illusion…
when collusion and such, even lone wolf collusion with something they read, then consensus is not real and the technique can be read about in Havelocks change agent Guide, and even classes on Dialoguing to consensus..
for petes sake we even discussed it hear a while back and how the idea is to get people to think that others think in a way they dont and then negate their ability to check out the fact
i mentioned this stuff and what they will do later as far back as 2008 and before.. glad people learned from it (not): http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/13/it-had-to-happen/
why not learn the game of mass control?
because then you cant be a part of the masses controlled?
February and March of 1980: Reagan was being absolutely devastated in head-to-head polling against Carter. Polling data was consistently showing that Carter was trouncing Reagan by 2:1, or about 60% to 30%.
[trump was not as bad as reagan!!!! but dont assume the polls were accurate at all… its very easy for a person hired by the polls to fix poll sheets… not to mention other things… and when the population in general wants a bernie, and is willing to claim rape falsely to end mens frats (man only is bad for feminism), and black people hang nooses to set up whites that dont exist, and whites claim to be part american indian to gain cache, and people claim to be kenyan for a book deal and paid school benefits not kenyan for presidency – where are your brains in correcting for the skew?]
problem is that those who are not anti trump or indifferent are listening to the same sources because out of the 6 companies that rule your life and news ALL OF THEM are on the left to greater or lesser degrees and NONE OF THEM are conservative…
[edited for length by n-n]
What you list regarding Nixon is correct, but the point is that the libs backdated the later issues.
Richard A.: That may have been your point and neo’s, but it wasn’t mine. My point was that voting for Hillary in 2016 is like voting for Nixon in 1972.
Given the choice between the known corrupt and the unknown crazy, Americans will pick the known corrupt.
A good friend tells a good story about that election. My friend, like me, was dumbfounded Nixon beat McGovern and beat him in a landslide. So my friend asked his girlfriend’s father, a hardscrabble guy who had made good money in the Florida construction boom. Mr. X told my friend, it’s simple — millions of Americans have good lives and don’t want to risk those lives on whatever pie-in-the-sky McGovern was offering.
Today people are hoping not to lose more than they already have, but it’s the same principle.
Art,
Two quick comments.
1. I remember 1984 well (first election I could vote in). Reagan was SMOKING Mondale the whole time, in my recollection. I don’t believe for a second that he was behind on the eve of the election.
2. Fox News. Conservative websites. Etc. This idea that all the news is skewed left is ridiculous.
It’s all part of the victim mentality of the right wing. Constant whining about the vast left-wing conspiracy. All votes are rigged. All polls are rigged. No one can produce conclusive evidence to what would be the scandal of the century (a stolen Presidential election).
I don’t know who will win. I wish someone besides these two would, but that’s almost inconceivable (I wish that word didn’t mean what I think it means). I hope Trump’s loss is so monumental that no one will be able to talk about a close, rigged election or skewed polls. And so that the alt-right slinks off into obscurity and we can (maybe) get our party back.
But the lout will probably win. If he does and the polls were off up until the election, yes, that will be huge. We’ll talk then.
My point and thesis is that in a world that only has dirty water, and no analytical machines, how do you know you have clean water?
we can take each point and lay it out and whether its being reported and repeated validly or not, or is the twist or the argument ad absurdem is whats remembered and not the actual point…
want to see what people dont notice?
CBS runs a thing on the outrageous quotes of Trump
[i dont want to send them traffic.. ]
they put up a image of trump with a banner held up “there is no place for hate in maine”
people look to the image first, and so the image just preloaded them with what idea? (no people dont notice this much, and i worked in a business whose job was to do this to them… so wake up)
the only credit was a name and reuters… so there is no way to know if that image was real, photoshop, a rally, etc… the less you think about it, and the more you internalize the emotion its set up for, the better.
then the text…
Trump spoke in the third person? that doesnt sound like a trump quote, that sounds like someone telling us what trump said… and it was..
lookign it up its:
Written statement on Dec. 7, 2015. Trump spoke that evening about his proposal during a rally aboard the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown in Mount Pleasant, S.C
now why are they all reporting this written statement, not the actual words? later on, this morphed into Trump wants to stop all immigration (leaving out the word illegal as they always do)… and morphed some more into Trump is a racist who doesnt like muslims… but muslim is not a race, its a religion… unless you think cat stevens became black when he converted.. .and that arabs are black, not white…
[take deBlasio today saying he thinks trump is a racist… but why didnt the news ask blasio how that would be so if trump spent so much money in court to stop the councils in florida from prohibiting jews and blacks from staying a mar a lago, his estate converted to a resort when he had to pay in a restructuring chapter 11 in AC]
most people forget muslim is a religion, not a race
[jews are one of the very few groups in which this is mixed up]
[edited for length by n-n]
huxley:
I don’t know how to say it more clearly than this: there is no similarity between 1972 and now. That’s for a simple reason: in 1972 the vast majority of Americans did NOT consider Nixon a “known corrupt.”
I was not the least bit surprised that McGovern was defeated. He was acknowledged to be far to the left of most Americans. People rejected him for that reason. He certainly was not considered the least bit crazy or unbalanced—or “unknown”—either. He was considered a man of the left, but had he had a long record in public life both at the state and federal level (senator).
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. If you’re referring to the Checkers thing back during the first Eisenhower campaign (1952), it wasn’t on most people’s radar screen in 1972, he had defended himself to most people’s satisfaction anyway, and he hadn’t even been accused of anything that was actually illegal.
I repeat: I have no idea what you’re talking about. It conforms neither to my memory of a history I lived through, nor to history as I read about it.
“In this space, for instance, even people arguing strongly that we should vote for Trump are using words to describe him such as “awful”, “totalitarian”, etc.” – Bill
I share the observation that for as bad as trump presumably is in some commenters’ eyes, they have a rather vigorous defense of him on the challenges made in this blog.
GB is the only one I see who is up front on thinking it is okay that trump is, indeed, authoritarian (though I only think that as a possibility).
.
A good many seem to have thrown in the towel and believe all is already lost, so better take a flyer on a possible authoritarian who MIGHT do a thing or two we like.
That thinking makes it seem as too many have given up way too easily, and seemingly without having really given it much serious effort to save and improve what we have.
.
It has always been there (particularly in conservative media), but it has become increasingly evident since 2008 that there is a lot of “Monday morning quarterbacking” going on, without any real understanding (nor attempt to) of the process and challenges in getting what they think they want done. That comes from lack of involvement as a starter.
I suspect they know the difficulty in getting people onside, and in frustration like to think of the “others” as know nothing, low info voters, and that groups vote en bloc and will never change.
Then, whenever they talk to anyone from those “groups” that attitude pours through, creating an unnecessary barrier to persuasion.
No doubt there are many on the other side of the argument who feel the same frustration and disdain, and we are adept at picking that up, yet ignoring our own.
.
BUT, people CAN be convinced.
We just need enough to turn the tide. 2016 was very promising in that regard – sigh!
We’ve got to quit treating folks like they are part of a monolithic group, stop playing to a grievance and victimhood mentality (e.g. Romney’s 47% comment), and take the case to those “others” rather than echo our grievances in a “conservative” bubble.
.
If it is not clear by now, it should be, that “conservative” media are not really helping us in this regard. They are selling eyeballs and ears to advertisers, so we cannot expect them to have our interests at heart. They feed the emotions which help keep us divided and getting to where we need to be, in their interest in building an audience.
We all need to go on a “media diet”, making “healthier” choices, and consuming a variety.
This has become increasingly difficult given the partisan nature of each source, but there are gems out there like Neo’s blog.
Still, if we completely ignore all “liberal” and consume only “conservative” media, we will have a rather poorly formed view of the world and what we need to do to move the ball forward. (e.g. all this talk of skewed and biased polls and some hidden “monster vote” – as one example).
neo: Well then, I don’t get what you’re talking about either.
I assure you I was around and paying attention in 1972. I remember quite a lot of distrust, even outright hatred, for Nixon then and I remember the historical reasons for them as I have cited.
Here’s another: “The Selling of the President” by Joe McGinnis a very cynical book about the marketing reboot of Nixon in the 1968 campaign so he could win. If Nixon wasn’t damaged goods somehow, why the reboot? That certainly reminds me of all the reboots of Hillary in this one.
If the history I lived and remembered doesn’t conform to yours, it’s a big country.
huxley:
Let me add that I am well aware of the “tricky Dick” appellation and the fact that Nixon was not liked, and was considered a bit shifty. But only compared to people like Eisenhower, not in the way of Hillary Clinton. There is really no comparison. Plus, as I already pointed out, many many voters didn’t remember 1952 and didn’t care what might have happened twenty years earlier than 1972. In 1972 Nixon had already been president for 4 years and people were relatively happy about him and his presidency and he hadn’t done anything considered “corrupt” during that time.
That some Beatniks didn’t like him isn’t exactly a mainstream opinion. Actually, most Democrats didn’t like him, for the most part, but that’s pretty irrelevant. Republicans liked him, only a small minority of people considered him to actually be corrupt, and the papers were NOT full of stories about any sort of corruption at the time.
More on the unlikelihood of a “monster” vote for trump…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/31/can_undecideds_help_trump_win_the_election_131660.html
Big Maq:
That’s an interesting article you linked, but it’s irrelevant to the “Monster Vote” question. A Monster Vote isn’t about undecideds, it’s about people voting who don’t usually vote at all.
Artfldgr:
It’s not clear whether you’re talking about Reagan in 1980 or 1984, but by the phrase “landslide victory” I assume you might be talking about 1984, but then again it’s more likely you’re talking about 1980, which was also a landslide although not as big a landslide.
But if 1980, see this, this, and this.
If 1984, then see this. Mondale was never ahead in the polls, and the Reagan landslide was correctly predicted.
I thought they were talking about the 3-15 million fake votes the Democrats could cook up… I guess they are clueless still, if they refuse to deal with that issue on the Presidential election. No different from the Republicans GOP E, they thought they would burn down and replace.
….fairly prone to media thought obedience measures-Harry
Funny, but an accurate description.
Maybe not enough to believe Nixon was capable of what was later revealed in Watergate, but in my circles there was little surprise.
It’s sort of like how future generations will recall that Hussein Obola won in Iraq and how Bush II lied so people died in Iraq for WMDs.
Bill Says: August 31st, 2016 at 1:31 pm Art, Two quick comments.
1) i was talking bout how the press reported it not how people remembered it or knew of how it was… remember that was 30 years ago, and the condition of the press was not as bad as it was today, you could still get good polls, and people trusted some. however, as the years progressed and under liberal laws and such, these sources all were consolidated into super sources and the education system evolved to normalize lying for the cause to be the normal behavior, etc.
2. Fox News. Conservative websites. Etc. This idea that all the news is skewed left is ridiculous.
i had to quote to handle this…
really?
its not possible for all news to have a bias towards one side? how would you know? what would you use as your criteria to know which side is taking what?
we do not judge absolutely, but relatively..
in fact, short of the speed of light, there is no absolute you can use to measure things… even space is curved by time…
now note… this does not mean that the people reading the news completey are ignorant, it means that you cant trust the news and you know otherwise the same way ex soviets and others experiencved with 100% skew know how to deal with…
your living under “the illusion of choice”
in 1983, the period under discussion, 90% the media and news services were owned by over 50 companies
by 2011, this was reduced, thanks to law changes to only 6
became this
********
now, in 2016, its reduced to 4
so this
**********
**********
**********
**********
**********
became this
******
which is now this
****
did you know or percieve that change? prior to 1983, there was even more companies and independent places to get news… this is why the internet is a SOROS target… and others target, and Obama was allowed to give control away to…
did you konw that all news you watch and read comes from those 6 and NONE of them are conservative?
about 200 executives control what you see and hear from tv, news, entertainment, etc.
Fox news is owned by Fox Network Group that is owned by 21st Century Fox, which was under News Corporation, one of the six
First Rupert had to go..
now they got rid of Ailes (feminist sexual ineuendo again)
news corporation, through 21st century fox, are now considering
David Rhodes, Jay Wallace, Jesse Angelo and Bill Shine
david rhodes is related to ben rhodes (white house, National Security Council speechwriter), and is also running CBS… so basically the CEO of CBS will run FOX..
we never ever ever discuss connections here. that smacks of conspiracy theory, and we are afraid to think… so we dont see who is tied to whom and what, and so on. we BELIEVE but we do not check our beliefs… or rather, few of us do, and those that do are gobsmaked, flabberghasted and so on that people who give a crap dont give a crap enough to do that work to be valid.. and so on.
you can be sure the leaders and those know, as this is their network and what trump would screw up just by being mr deeds and not knowing!!! [nor would they let him know as he might spill the beans as he finds things out and how bad for them would that be?]
News Corp owns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corp
Lists of corporate assets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_corporate_assets
Holding companies
List of Procter & Gamble brands
List of Unilever brands
Sony Corporation shareholders and subsidiaries
List of assets owned by Vivendi
Vulcan Inc.
List of assets owned by Berkshire Hathaway
List of Nestlé brands
Advertising holding companies
WPP Group
Omnicom
Publicis
Interpublic
Technology companies
List of assets owned by HP
List of assets owned by Microsoft Corporation
List of assets owned by Mitsubishi
Food companies
List of assets owned by Cara Operations
List of assets owned by The Coca-Cola Company
List of ConAgra Foods, Inc.’s subsidiaries and brands
List of assets owned by McDonald’s
List of assets owned by PepsiCo
List of assets owned by Real Mex Restaurants, Inc.
List of assets owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
List of assets owned by Wendy’s International, Inc.
List of assets owned by Yum! Brands, Inc.
Conglomerates
List of assets owned by Siemens
List of assets owned by General Electric
List of Canadian National Railways companies
List of Gazprom’s subsidiaries
List of subsidiary railways of the Canadian Pacific Railway
Subsidiaries and affiliates of Total S. A.
and Media companies
List of assets owned by 21st Century Fox
Advance Publications, United States
American Media, United States
List of assets owned by Bell Media, Canada
Belo, United States
List of assets owned by Bertelsmann, Germany
List of assets owned by Cablevision, United States
List of assets owned by CanWest Global Communications, Canada
List of assets owned by CBS
List of assets owned by CHUM Limited
List of assets owned by Clear Channel Communications
List of assets owned by Comcast
List of assets owned by CTVglobemedia
List of assets owned by Disney
List of assets owned by Dow Jones
List of assets owned by Gannett
List of assets owned by Hearst Corporation
List of assets owned by Hubbard Broadcasting Corporation
List of assets owned by News Corp
List of assets owned by The New York Times Company
List of assets owned by Rogers Communications
List of assets owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group
List of assets owned by Time Warner
List of assets owned by Tribune Company
List of assets owned by Viacom
List of assets owned by Village Voice Media
List of assets owned by Washington Post Company
Saban Capital Group
so fox news, cbs, new york times, time warner, etc… are all owned by one company… that same company told 21st century fox to get rid of Ailes who was heading fox news under fox news group under 21st century fox.
List of assets owned by 21st Century Fox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_21st_Century_Fox
its way way too big for me to detail but the highest level of one companies ownership and thats barely anything…
news corps important people are
Rupert Murdoch (Executive Co-Chairman)
Lachlan Murdoch (Executive Co-Chairman)
Robert James Thomson (CEO)
Paul Cheesbrough (CTO)
funny thing… Rupert Murdoch is a CFR member, a Royal Knight (gregory), and a Papal Knight, and a Bilderberg member. (lachlan is his son)
but note that News corp also owns CBS…
from your perspective these are separate companies some conservative, some not so much…
from THEIR perspective, your a fish, and they hope to catch you in a relative conservative net, a relative liberal net, etc
this is the same deal the feminists do…
you can be a feminist for porn
a feminist against porn
a eco feminist, a globalist feminist
This allows the leaders as a group to do anyhthing they want and just point to the subgroup as who they support… ie. the sugroups become meaningless and powerless!!!!!!!!
cool, eh?
anyway, i already said too much and wrote too much and sorry if i annoyed everyone… 🙁
Art,
Respectfully, if you can’t recognize that Fox News is a 24/7 shill-fest for Donald Trump, I don’t know what else to say.
You’re right in that broadcast/cable news is increasingly (like many industries) owned by conglomerates, but with the internet we basically have unlimited places to get news, and many of them are independent.
I think one issue we actually have now is that people are tailoring the news too much toward what they want to hear and what confirms their biases. There are plenty of people who listen/read ONLY conservative opinion. Heck, I fall into that a lot myself.
I don’t believe that our problem is that we have monolithic news sources, because we don’t.
What this election has revealed, however, is that conservative (so-called) media sources aren’t always so conservative and are willing to sell out to a non-conservative candidate (how many of the “right-wing” national pundits are advising DJT even now?) – and that they really haven’t done much to prevent the leftward slide, have they? How many Republicans have won Presidential office since Rush Limbaugh became a big kahuna back int he Clinton admin, for example?
Entertainers…
To sum up Art’s comment, the NWO owns the media propaganda networks in the US, and they are selling conservative theme ice cream on Fox News because it is profitable or highly rated.
It’s still the NWO and federal reserve types pulling the strings, however.
The funny thing is, while the Leftist cannonfodder at the bottom don’t realize this, but those NWO corporate types, if they exist, use significant parts of the Leftist alliance for their own goals. And in fact, now a days the NWO is almost in line with the Left’s social goals.
NWO (Northwwst Ordinance) versus /jk
NWO (New World Order) those who fly the Black Helicopters /p
/jk = joke
/p = parody
This is starting to read like something from The Onion. not /S
NWO (New World Order) those who fly the Black Helicopters and carry scarry ordnance. Black rifles, black budgets….. /p
Folks are starting to sound like we are living within a real life Scarlatti Inheritance – nothing is what it seems, as there is some grand global conspiracy at play.
Oh the horrors of P&G and Unilever!
I once had someone very dear to me claim that there was some vast conspiracy to hide the cure for cancer, including specifically having board membership at newspapers like the NYT and at institutions like Sloan-Kettering with the purpose to suppress any such news should it surface.
After researching it (not much effort on the internet) and showing no such connection, they still insisted there was a conspiracy. That person died of cancer a short while later.
The reality is, what $100K per year scientist is going to sit on such a cure when members of their own family might need that medicine? There are thousands of such people for every one who is on these boards.
Just doesn’t make sense after scratching the surface, but all conspiracies are like that – they have enough surface plausibility for those who want to believe them, but not much substance to back them up.
Anyone who buys into an index fund for $1K can technically list off several recognized companies as “assets” under their “ownership”.
Not surprising that a billionaire would have their wealth diversified over several assets.
Big Maq.
Seen that before. Prescott Bush owned shares in a bank which owned shares in a pre-WWII bank run by some guys who were so annoyed by Hitler they liquidated it and went to Switzerland.
Presto. Bush supported Hitler.
A cardinal rule in assessing the likelihood of a conspiracy is asking the question “for this to be real, how many people would have to be included in the conspiracy?” For me, if the answer is “more than 5” there’s now way it’s real. Because people simply don’t keep secrets or maintain loyalties like that, certainly not over the long term.
So it’s likely we have some election fraud in pockets/precincts in our country (and going both ways). It’s unlikely that there’s a vast left wing conspiracy that fixes our elections. And if there had been there’s now way GWB wins in 2000 or 2004.
A left-wing conspiracy like that would be the hottest news on the planet and there’s no way the thousands of people who would need to be involved would all keep their mouths shut. Human nature.
The New World Order was documented by Rockefeller and others in a book, including external sources documenting the meeting of various financial heads behind the federal reserve at Jekyll Island.
Using disinformation and Active Measures, Russian style, they have set it up so that conspiracy theorists have taken off with it, associating it with Illuminati and Jew blood child drinking, and various other things. So that they don’t have to “defend” themselves against preposterous charges, and in effect have hidden the involvement. Although a lot of people like the Rockefellers, only needed to hide it for a few decades. Later on, they admitted to being part of a new world order, and the wording is from the financial conglomerate leaders, not the grassroots outsiders.
As for black helicopters, that’s what people in Wisconsin thought, before enemies of Walker used SWAT to bust in the doors and hope an “accident” would happen where the SWAT would be “suspended with pay” while investigations occurred.
A left-wing conspiracy like that would be the hottest news on the planet and there’s no way the thousands of people who would need to be involved would all keep their mouths shut.
The Left openly talks about it, as O’Keefe found out in Acorn investigation and others found out via Planned Profit. The reason why you don’t hear about it is because your conservative and Leftist media sources are sipping from the same soup bowl. The former, by good intentions, the latter, by bad intentions.
As for conspiracies in general, they are like atheism and Global Warming. Whether people believe in a con is based on their greed, lack of virtues, and general desire to be afraid of the truth or want to believe in something for nothing. Of course, there are heretical religions that are in on this money con as well, such as Westboro Baptists or even the old and new versions of the Roman Catholic church under the Papacy, the Pope.
Most people cannot see the truth, as evidenced by 95% of the people met by those here. Yet that is not evidence that the truth does not exist nor that they can prove the evidence does not exist. That is not a lack of proof, but rather proof that humans have fatal flaws and are easily manipulated. If that wasn’t so, the Exceptional Americans wouldn’t have fallen for Hussein Obola and Global Warming so hard. They and we would All be Immune to propaganda. But humans are not as immune as they believe, for while faith and belief can make many things visible, it cannot quite violate divine and natural laws.
B once asked me where I got the 3% number from, but his own life experience demonstrates the truth of that percentage quite well, even without my answer to him in the past.
Y:
You made up the %, OK. sort of like the 10% rule, makes a SWAG sound more authoritative.
Free advice: Don’t go down the rabbit hole bashing Roman Catholics please, you will just PO folks. I’m not Roman Catholic, (evangelical Christian), BTW.
http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2016/09/even-for-cnn-this-is-something.html
That would be taken as evidence that the Left isn’t run as a hierarchy with a command and control chain. Generally speaking, that type of self deception in the face of hard evidence, eventually wears away.
You made up the %, OK. sort of like the 10% rule, makes a SWAG sound more authoritative.
The Three Percent as a phrase online for insurgencies and for the War of Independence is well known. I am not the only source on that one.
As for being authoritative, I have no issues on that matter, since I neither care for your authority nor does it matter if you refuse to worship existing authority, OM.
Free advice: Don’t go down the rabbit hole bashing Roman Catholics please, you will just PO folks. I’m not Roman Catholic, (evangelical Christian), BTW.
Catholics and Southern Baptists are both heretics to me, compared to 1st AD Christendom. Anything you say on this matter, will need theological backing and authority, otherwise you’ll have no choice but to use force to coerce me to think otherwise. Besides, I’ve exposed the truth about the Demoncrats before and after the CW 1, whether they liked it online or not. Nothing from people like you, OM, is going to do anything to stop me now, unless you exercise certain powers in the material realm.
To put it in words you can understand, Your Authority means less to me than the ants I stepped on.
In case people here haven’t noticed, I have been pissing off people since 2007. Nothing about that is going to change, unless you want to use your power to coerce me to do otherwise Using Your Authority. If not, take your pearls and go to the hog pen. This is me turning the Other Cheek, because the one you gave free advice on, didn’t feel much overall. So people are welcome to try again, although they’ll need more firepower than words to get rid of me.
On matters of religion and other peoples faith, you choose to become ignored, it may carry over into other topics as well. “People like you” is a bit harsh. Oh well, pearls before swine.
What power would that be? Electronic frowns? Too funny.