The Day After

Date
Canonical
6438
Archive
6438 [history]

I watched very little of the Republican debate last night. These are not designed to inform the voters or challenge the contestants. They are TV shows. Those old enough to remember the Gong Show have to notice the similarities. The only difference is the old Gong Show had more self-respect. Chuck Barris had no illusions about what he was doing.

I caught some bits and pieces on-line, mostly through twitter. The clips I saw of Chris Christie pulling Rubio’s underwear over his head made me laugh. I’ve said for years now that Rubio is Miss South Carolina with a penis. The guy is as dumb as plank, but he can memorize his lines. As long as he is not asked to go off script, he sounds convincing. Last night he sounded like every other dumb actor.

Trump supporters on-line were jubilant. I suspect they feared a rally by the open-borders people behind Rubio in New Hampshire. The Conservative media was all prepared to make second place the new first place, just as they did after Iowa, by making third the new first. I flipped on Fox and it looked like they were covering a funeral so I’m guessing they think it is curtains for Rubio.

What’s somewhat interesting about all this is both parties are facing a problem they thought they would never face. That is, the voters picking a nominee off the unapproved list. If Sanders wins big in New Hampshire, it’s hard to imagine Clinton recovering. What’s coming through loud and clear is the voters would rather lose than win with Hillary.

The Republicans are facing a similar problem. If Trump wins New Hampshire, it’s hard to imagine any of the dwarfs surviving the night. Bush, Kasich, Rubio and Christie will have lost badly in the first two tests. Cruz and Trump will be the remaining options. Unless one of the dwarfs has a magical election night and finishes second, there’s no argument for keeping them in the race.

My guess is the old hands in both parties are quietly discussing what they do to prevent these unacceptable options from winning the nomination. The Democrats have changed their system to give the party elders enough of the delegates so they could block Sanders if they choose to do it. That would mean having another option like Biden, Gore or maybe Warren. A Biden – Warren ticket could placate the Sanders people.

On the GOP side, it’s not as easy, but they can still throw a wrench in the works. One way would be to rally around the first dwarf on Tuesday night. Let say Kasich finishes second. The other dwarfs drop out and endorse him as king of the dwarfs and they make an explicit statement that they are doing it to stop Trump.

That crystallizes the rest of the race as the sensible wing versus the crazies. The media will pile on and it could probably be enough to prevent Trump from getting the required delegates. The dwarf league would ignore Cruz, seeing him as a drain on Trump. The trouble with this is it would be so transparent it could very well work in Trump’s favor.

The doomsday scenario for both parties is the Michael Bloomberg option. Bill Kristol has already said he will bolt the GOP if Trump is the nominee. It’s not hard to imagine the Conservative Industrial Complex following him and supporting Bloomberg as the “least bad option.” They could decorate their banners with quotes from Buckley about strategic voting.

At the same time, Progressives would suddenly have an option they could support if they don’t like Sanders. Instead of a blood bath at their convention, they could let Sanders have the nomination, but make clear that real liberal democrats will be backing Bloomberg as the reconciliation candidate. “He’s the only guy who can unite both parties!”

All of this sounds farfetched, but the prospect of a Trump – Sanders election sounded laughably absurd a year ago. We live in an age where the ridiculous quickly becomes the norm. Twenty years ago, comics told jokes about men marrying men. Today, they threaten you with prison for even remembering those jokes. Mark Steyn was purged from National Review for repeating an old quip about homosexuals popular in the 50’s.

We are in a great transition, so everything is on the table. Just look over at England. One party evaporated. The other is run by a lunatic, leaving them with the Tories and that weird Scottish Nationalist Party. Predicting that five years ago would have gotten you committed. Heck, the smart money five years ago said Labour would return to power.

Some on the Alt-Right think the parties are reorganizing along globalist-nationalist lines. Others see one party being the white party and the other the NAM party, making America something like Rhodesia, I guess. Then there are those who suspect Brazil is the future, where a light skin oligarchy rules over a massive dark skinned ghetto. Maybe some combination of all of those things is the answer.

The simpler answer could be that globalism simply has no constituency in a mass media democracy. Global capitalism outlandishly benefits a very small portion of society. People being what they are, this massive inequality opens the doors for candidates antithetical to global capitalism. That was the lesson 100 years ago and it maybe the lesson today. Of course, 100 years it took a blood bath to drive home that point.

To keep Z Man's voice alive for future generations, we’ve archived his writings from the original site at thezman.com. We’ve edited out ancillary links, advertisements, and donation requests to focus on his written content.

Comments (Historical)

The comments below were originally posted to thezman.com.

20 Comments

Roger #8662 February 7, 2016 2:49 pm 1
A bit off topic: It occurred to me last night that the south is due for Reconstruction III very soon now.
Buckaroo Banzai #8708 February 8, 2016 3:40 pm 0
It’s happening right now; what do you think all the hullaballoo about the Confederate Battle Flag and Confederate war monuments is in service of?
Buckaroo Banzai #8660 February 7, 2016 2:21 pm 1
The problem with the “Bloomberg Option” is that Bloomberg is not only a terrible campaigner, he is also a profoundly unlikable person. He’s like Trump, but with all the good parts removed, and all the bad parts dialed up to eleven. That is a formula for disaster on a national level. If they do decide to run Bloomberg against Trump and Sanders, they will be forced to rely on assassinations, massive voter fraud, or a combination of the two. Trump at least has the best security money can buy. If I was Sanders, I’d be awfully concerned for my health and well-being if I saw Bloomberg getting into the race.
antipater_1 #8664 February 7, 2016 3:52 pm 1
It seems unlikely to me that Bloomberg – the “Little Big Gulp”- could attract many votes outside of NYC, some other north eastern areas and some coastal California areas.
thezman #8665 February 7, 2016 3:56 pm 1
In a country that elected Obama twice, no candidate can be dismissed. Bloomberg would get the liberal vote. If he was sufficiently pro-war, he could draw in the neo-con support. There are still a lot of voters who want to go another few rounds with muzzies.
Buckaroo Banzai #8706 February 8, 2016 3:36 pm 0
Obama is an adept at delivering neuro-linguistic programming, and using mass-hypnosis techniques; that’s what got him elected. Ascribing his election to the idea that people will randomly vote for anybody is profoundly disrespectful to his powerful, albeit narrow, skillset. (As an aside, it sure would be interesting to know who taught him these arcane arts, and during which resume gap he learned them, because his emergence at the 2004 convention was like Athena springing fully-formed from the head of Zeus.) Bloomberg, on the other hand, couldn’t talk a crack whore into a blowjob even after showing her a hundred-dollar bill. It would take every bit of street muscle the Democrat party could mobilize, combined with billions in ad spend, to get out the party faithful; independents and the politically indifferent would just stay home. Bloomberg will represent a desperation play if he gets involved.
Audacious Epigone #8720 February 8, 2016 10:34 pm 0
Way back in the halcyon days of September,I predicted a Trump-Cruz ticket, Cruz as the VP because Trump was in the driver’s seat and a champion of MARS’ discontent, whereas Cruz was just seen as not actively hostile towards it. Thought maybe they’d even surprise by announcing the proposed ticket before an obvious nominee had been anointed. Cruz surged sooner than I’d anticipated (he was polling at like 6% when I made it) and the two subsequently tore into each other.Since the VP doesn’t do anything other than set himself up for the presidency–and Cruz is certainly young enough to be happy with VP–Trumpians would have gotten everything they wanted, including, most importantly, an advantage simply too large for the establishment to overcome, even if they all unified behind one of the dwarves. Trump+Cruz is over 50% nationally, and some of Carson’s lingering support would’ve probably come over, too.After Iowa, the damage is probably irreparable, and that prediction looks silly.If Cruz falls into third and his chances start looking insurmountable, you think he’ll endorse the party-approved guy to knock out Trump? At that point, Trump becomes Samson, and the Republican party loses the election.Relatedly, I don’t see how the GOP has a shot in the general unless Trump either gets the nod or bows out gracefully. If he’s forced out, the evidence of bad faith on the part of the establishment is so overwhelming that it’d seem that he could easily doom whoever the cuckservative candidate ends up being. As someone who ultimately favors secession in some form, I’d gladly vote for Hillary or Sanders just to speed the dissolution along.
thezman #8721 February 8, 2016 10:42 pm 0
I’ve been looking back at Sean Trende’s numbers on the 2012 election. All those white people they expected to vote that decided to stay home are probably a big chunk of Trump’s support. Unless the democrats do nominate sanders, at which point all bets are off, the GOP probably has to back a Trump – somebody ticket. I think if Trump tops 30% there may be some phone calls made from the RNC to Team Trump about doing a deal. Maybe Trump – Kasich, pairing an old hand with Trump.
Audacious Epigone #8736 February 9, 2016 4:48 pm 0
Speaking of an old hand–meant entirely as a compliment–I’m glad I found you for nomination analysis (wish I would’ve much earlier, but better late than never). PredictIt, an online market I’ve been following for a few months, has Kasich with the top odds for the VP spot on the GOP side.I get that governor+Ohio+Establishment-approved all work in his favor, but he’s been campaigning hard for years now and he can’t get any national traction at all (6% is the highest he’s ever registered nationally). Taking a quick look at previous VP slots, though, national polling (if the VP aspirant had previously been running for president) doesn’t seem to correlate much with being chosen as VP. Biden never got above 5% nationally, Palin was mostly unknown, etc.So in this scenario Kasich would be more of a compromise to get the party to stop fighting Trump rather than a VP spot to maximize Trump’s chances. I wonder if Trump would accept someone like Kasich, who is a caricature of everything Trump’s supporters hate about the Republican establishment.
Jake #8691 February 8, 2016 9:30 am 0
Let the bloodbath begin.
R Daneel #8674 February 7, 2016 8:16 pm 0
z said: “On the GOP side, it’s not as easy, but they can still throw a wrench in the works.” Check this out. The eGoP has a plan to commit suicide:http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/09/gope-2016-road-map-to-victory-tree-house-challenge/
Kathleen #8672 February 7, 2016 6:29 pm 0
Bloomberg is a non-starter, not even worth discussing. I enjoyed last nights “debate”, very entertaining, unlike the Democrats the other night which was exceedingly painful. It’s obvious that Rubio is the Establishment’s replacement should Bush fail to succeed, which of course he is. Unfortunately for the GOPe, everybody sees their next move before they make it. We’ve seen this show before. Kasich is going nowhere, he does not have national appeal. And who cares if Kristol bolts? One less irrelevant talking head to muck up the airwaves.
Anon #8663 February 7, 2016 3:40 pm 0
Sounds like you might be equating mass-immigration with ‘global capitalism’.“Capitalism” is nothing but free trade, which is entirely natural. In that sense, humanity has been “capitalist” from its inception. The less capitalist a society is, the more communist it is, and the less successful it is. Don’t you agree?Then there’s the question of whether it’s worthwhile for a country to be entirely open to foreign goods or whether it should work to strengthen local industry by imposing tariffs on foreign imports, which also means people end up paying more for these goods (that’s the inevitable consequence, the other side of the coin). I think tariffs on specific things can be ultimately beneficial but it would be ridiculous for every country to entirely block (or place a very high tax) on goods from other countries. Do you have a different opinion?
thezman #8667 February 7, 2016 4:03 pm 0
Sounds like you might be equating mass-immigration with ‘global capitalism’.“Capitalism” is nothing but free trade, which is entirely natural. In that sense, humanity has been “capitalist” from its inception. The less capitalist a society is, the more communist it is, and the less successful it is. Don’t you agree?No, I don’t agree. Global capitalism is the accumulation and free flow of capital independent from and in opposition to national borders. Mass migration is one part of it. International finance is another. Trade policy is another.Further, there never has been free trade. There are always rules. Global operators hate these rules because it limits their size advantage. So, they buy off politicians to get rules that favor them at the expense of indigenous and/or smaller competitors. Google is not pushing open borders because it is good for everyone. They push it because it is good for them and bad for their competition.
Anon #8669 February 7, 2016 4:33 pm 0
You seem to lump international flow of goods with international flow of people. I think Libertarians are into that but I don’t see that it makes sense. I’d label capitalism as free flow of goods, not people. What would that do to your argument? Google also don’t need to be in favour of mass immigration since it does nothing for them either way. If anything, by ruining the economy of wealthy countries, it’s bad for them too. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just that political correctness dominates, particularly people in the public eye.Also, don’t you agree that relatively free trade is massively beneficial to western countries?
el_baboso #8670 February 7, 2016 5:07 pm 1
People sell their labor. Others buy that labor. Therefore, there is a market in labor.People coming to more developed nations to sell their labor at a rate above what they could charge in their home country but for less than what the indigenous laborers in the MDC would charge is capitalism pure and simple. That they are crossing international boundaries makes their transaction part of the global capitalist system. The fact that many if not most of them wire money home to family or save money to take home and buy land or pay the bride price means that they continue to be part of the global capitalist system.These are all commonly acknowledged definitions. Don’t go moving the goal posts on me.
David_Parsons #8675 February 7, 2016 11:42 pm 1
You sound like a lawyer. Am I allowed to hire a foreign low-wage lawyer to do legal work in the U.S.? No, I’m not. Why not? Because lawyers wrote laws preventing that to maintain their standard of living. The non-lawyers among us have caught onto the game, and we want the same rules.
andrew garland #8705 February 8, 2016 3:22 pm 0
Lawyers are maintaing their standard of living by giving you a bad deal, limiting their competition and charging you more. You could oppose this self-dealing or attempt to climb on. If most try to climb on, then everyone will have a lower standard of living.
Alexandros HoMegas #8659 February 7, 2016 2:20 pm 0
“I’ve said for years now that Rubio is Miss South Carolina with a penis.” So what is Lindsey Graham? Seriolusly, a Trump vs Sanders Presidential race would be a God send, the Globalist elite aren’t undefeateble after all.
Buckaroo Banzai #8661 February 7, 2016 2:38 pm 1
That’s easy. Lindsey Graham is Miss South Carolina without a penis.


Back to top