The Future of the GOP


Let me first begin by saying that a lead of three million in the national popular vote is meaningless. Instead of running one big election, the US runs 52 different presidential elections and plenty of other senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial ones. As long as you can win those that is all that matters. While it is true that a larger lead gives you claim to a mandate the national popular vote is not the metric to use for it. I will discuss the argument for mandate in another post. If the system changes then my analysis will change as well but until it does I standby my analysis in the rest of this article.

Where does the GOP go from here? The data says that in order to win future presidential elections the GOP does not need to reach out to new voting blocks. Empirical data says that the GOP absorbed a new voting block this election. Democrats argue that Trump has already hit his peak with working class votes and needs to reach out to other demographics but the data does not bear this out. The data shows the GOP only needs to unite the two factions inside its party and their electoral future is assured. Does that mean the GOP should stop all future outreach? Of course not. You want a bigger majority to get your things passed anyway and there are some groups the GOP can make inroads in.

To prove the points made in the last paragraph i will be studying the Presidential and Senatorial race in Pennsylvania. Trump of course represents the new nationalist wing of the GOP and Toomey represents the standard GOP. I encourage everyone to check the conclusions I draw and apply it to other states and I am confident the same results will come out. We have three general geographical divisions in Pennsylvania and other areas, Rural, Suburban, and Urban.

In Rural areas you have the Trumpian wing of the GOP ascendant. We routinely see Trump outperforming Toomey by anywhere from 5-20%. Lets take a look at some counties

In Clinton County Trump got 10022 votes while Toomey only got 8702 votes. That is around 15% more votes that Toomey could get if the two wings were unified.

In Elk County Trump got 10025 votes while Toomey got 8703 votes. That is around 10% more votes that Toomey could get.

In Clearfield County Trump got 24932 votes while Toomey got 22128. That is around a 10% differential.

The added benefit of these rural counties is more than just more votes. They are also spread out all over the place. This means they have a greater impact in more congressional districts. More often than not these counties represent individual small towns as well each with their own elective positions. This gives a unified GOP a bigger bench to draw from.

In the Suburbs the standard GOP wing fares better as some voters have been stayed by the GOP civil war. Throughout the election there was story after story about how Trump would end up costing the GOP the presidency, house, and senate and there was the very public resistance movements led by Mcmullin, Romney, and others.

In Montgomery County Trump got 162,731 votes while Toomey got 189,574. That is at least 10% more votes Trump could have gotten.

In Bucks County Trump got 164,361 votes while Toomey got 175,898.

In the cities Republicans usually do dismally but the trend stays the same

In Philadelphia County Trump got 108,748 votes while Toomey got 116,714. Still around an 8% increase.

The good news for Trump in the suburban and urban areas is the old adage “victory covers a multitude of sins”. Conservatives who have abandoned Trump during the election because may now be willing to fall in line since he has a proven track record of victory.

For this next part I have to rely on polling and some educated guesses as I lack some hard numbers. According to exit polls Trump won 35% of urban voters and 50% of suburban ones. If we look at these numbers we see that just by unifying the different GOP factions he can get an additional 3-7% of these votes. The GOP candidates running downticket would be able to get an additional 5-6% of the rural vote share. Quantifying this is a bit harder as I cannot see any breakdown of number of voters who voted in urban, suburban, and rural areas. To be able to come up with some sort of number however I will use the census data that says 75% of Americans live in suburban and ubran areas while 25% live in rural areas and assume that that was the breakdown in turnout as well. Using this I can come up with a rough estimate of an additional 1.5m-3m votes Trump could have gotten if the GOP were unified behind him and Toomey would have gotten 80k to 100k more votes. A unified GOP would be more than enough to secure the presidency and more seats with its current coalition.

Regarding outreach. The democrats are in a position where they have to expand their voting base. If they do that they must take up new causes which may not be popular with their current coalition. In any case what Trump showed by poaching the labor class from the democrats is that the longer a group stays in a coaliton and the more secure the party it is on it then the more its issues are taken for granted. Using this theory the GOP should go after the staunchest democrat constituencies. According to polling that would be the African Americans who vote democrat 90% of the time and the Jews which vote 70% of the time. As luck would have it Israel presents a perfect issue to woo these voters with and Trump is already trying to charm the African American voters non-stop. In fact I predict that the Flint Water Crisis will be solved or on the way to being solved within his first 100 days.

If the GOP follows these suggestions 2018 and 2020 should be won with no problems.

The Economy of Hope


Thanks Donald! Consumer confidence is at its highest in 15 years. In case you’re wondering or yes Thanks Donald is warranted. Everything Trump has done up to this point has been geared towards increasing consumer spending and consumer confidence. I will go into each deal later on but let me first explain the unifying theory behind everything.

In the view of President Trump and a lot of other economists consumer spending is one of the main drivers of the economy. More than any other factor consumer spending is the one which you can influence using psychological factors. When people feel hopeful about the future they are more likely to spend more. Note that they do not need to necessarily earn more to spend more. They can put more things on credit, save less, put less of their income into debt servicing, and a whole host of other things.

When people spend more on the economy the demand goes up so companies are either forced to produce more of the demanded product or hire more people to provide the demanded service. More available jobs means that labor has better bargaining power to negotiate for higher wages and more disposable income to spend on even more things. Which then leads to a great cycle of economic growth. All this happens just by instilling a more positive outlook in everyone. We haven’t even gone into the stimulus package, tax cuts, deregulation and other things President Trump has planned for the economy. This is the difference between someone telling you that yes you can get your jobs back as opposed to no your jobs are gone forever and you will have to live on scraps from now on while mortgaging your house to get a second degree.

The number of jobs in the various deals don’t even matter. All that matters is that the populace sees that Trump will fight for their jobs no matter how small and will act to bring in new ones.

Carrier -The left scoffs at the president-elect getting involved at such a small deal. 1000 or less jobs.The fact that its small actually helps build confidence too because it gives people hope that the President will act to save jobs no matter how few.

Softtel- Again no matter how few the jobs Trump is giving everyone the hope that he will be facilitating the creation of new ones. Nobody expected Trump to create jobs while still President elect. In fact no other President-elect has been as active as he is. This gives people hope that he will create more in the future.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin – At some level almost everyone is concerned about the debt. It is not the primary concern for most but they still would not like to see it balloon. All people really need to see is that there are steps taken to control it. Early targeting of out of control government programs shows this. The actual figures adding up at the end of the day doesn’t matter and wont be shown until the end of the presidency anyway. All that matters is that people see some visible action taken.

It is very refreshing to have a President who actually understands the psychological aspect of the economy. I cannot wait for the start of the actual Presidency.

Thanks Donald!

Demonization Works


Let me begin with my central thesis. Demonization is a valid and effective tool in changing the behavior of a given person or group. In this case speaking of Muslims. Whenever a terrorist attack happens leftist commentators inevitably point out that if it is a white person who is caught he would be declared a lone wolf, but if it were an Islamic person the blame would spread to the entire religion. They then proceed to point out how evil the right is for doing this and how counterproductive it is. Of course no mention as to how the terrorists are almost always Muslims but we will get to that later.

First off I want to show how collective punishment does work to change behavior. If you have ever been in the military or any similar institution you may remember the entire platoon being forced to run or do push-ups or given extra duties for the infractions of a few. The result is the members of the group try to get less infractions so that their unit gets punished less.

In the Philippines, India, and other third world countries there are community lending programs which lend to a group instead of an individual. Each member of the group would get their individual loans and each would be responsible for paying it back. If one member failed to repay their loan then the entire group would be punished by getting denied loans in the future. The result is that the group members themselves, often from the same community and in some cases the same family pressured the members to pay on behalf of the bank and there was a higher repayment rate. The funds ended up being used for business as well as there was an extra consequence of squandering it.

Consider North Carolina in America. The Governor did something the left did not agree with and businesses punished the state. This of course punished the workers for the actions of the state. As a result the state rescinded the laws and it sent a chilling effect to other states.

The liberal media attempts it all the time as well. You see headlines saying a certain survey shows all Trump voters are racist, all republicans are uneducated, and every other possible variation to imply that if you vote democrat then you are a great person but if you vote republican you are a terrible one. These are of course the very same people who tell us that demonization does not work.

Back to Islam. If you see a terrorist attack or mass murder on tv and think that a muslim did it you would be justified in thinking so. In 2015 99% of all terrorist attacks were done by Muslims. We only have 2 isolated incidents aside from that done by communist extremists. To make it worse there is no isolated sect of Islam responsible for the bombings. Both Sunni’s and Shia’s have groups which do it. Even joining Islam does not save you as half the targets of the suicide bombings are fellow muslims. As you can see there is something seriously wrong with Islamic ideology so much so that even when you give the entire world to them one half would still try to kill the other for religious reasons.

I always say that if I walk down elm street and get mugged every day I would be justified in having negative stereotypes of elm street and everyone living there. No one would complain if I reroute to another street particularly if I don’t get mugged there every day. The same analogy applies to terrorism and Islam.

What do we want to achieve by doing this? The first and best result would always be to wean its followers away from Islam. This hurts the terrorists the most as while they believe in Islam they also use its moderates as a shield to prevent the authorities from clamping down harder on them. The less adherents of Islam there is the weaker terrorists become as they have less places to hide. The next thing we want to achieve is to turn the moderates of Islam against the extremists. It has been reported that most radicalization occurs in mosques and other areas populated almost exclusively by Muslims. Showing the moderates that they are in a way tainted by association with the extremists would encourage them to turn them in more and to counsel against radicalization. Lastly we also hope that the extremists themselvess see that the reputation of Islam as a whole is suffering because of them.

Do not feel guilty for holding Islam accountable because of the actions of its followers. Remember the people who justify the suicide bombings are among those who have studied the Quran the longest. Pointing out the flaws of the religion may be the only thing that can save it, if indeed it can be saved.

Who Needs the UN?


When I was younger I belonged to this awesome gaming club. We tried out every new game we could get our hands on and I was happy to find a group willing to play Arkham Horror and Here I Stand. I didn’t even mind bringing more than my fair share of games as I got plenty of fun out of it. Of course life happens and I didn’t have time to play as many board games as I wanted anymore so it didn’t make sense to keep buying new games for this club.

This is similar to what we are going thru with the UN. Before we begin let us get the facts first. The US pays 22% of the UN general budget and 25% of the peacekeeping budget. While Russia and China both pay less than 3%. It doesn’t end here though, various UN agency ask for voluntary contributions from the US as well to supplement their projects. Nobody will really dispute the US pays more than its fair share of the UN.

Is it worth it? As a nationalist I was initially thrilled with the UN. Think about it. We had an international organization that we controlled. We were the only ones who really knew how to use it initially and it enabled us to claim the moral high ground in any activity we chose. We could use the UN to condemn our enemies and use that as propaganda. Did it matter that it was an international organization? Not really. All that mattered is that we could use it to further our national interest. I would have been perfectly happy paying 100% for that UN.

The problem is over time other countries have learned to use the UN to their own advantage. In fact if you look at the UN now most of its time is spent blocking the US and condemning Israel one of our principal allies despite numerous atrocities being done daily all across the world. The UN is being used to pressure countries into taking more and more muslim economic immigrants as well. It is fast becoming a negative rather than a positive.

Should we completely defund the UN? That is a solution, though it would most likely involve us leaving the UN entirely. At the very least we should be paying the same amount as China and Russia and not a penny more. One thing is clear. There is no advantage in funding an organization that is of no benefit to us.

The critique is that the US will be diminished if it pulls out of the UN and will no longer be relevant on the world stage. They have it backwards. The US is the US. It derives its power from being the US not from being part of any organization. In fact the organizations in question whether it be the UN , NATO, or anything else gets more power by having the US as a member. Even if it was not a member of any organization the US would still have 11 carrier battle groups, each with the capability of destroying the entire navy of any other power. Without the UN the US is still the most desirable market in the world, with a population possessing the highest amount of purchasing power. Without the UN the US would still be needed to enforce any ceasefires or humanitarian decrees.

The UN must make itself useful to the US to receive the same level of funding. Being a member is not enough as the UN derives greater value from having the US as a member than the US gets at being a member. If the UN fails at this then we have no reason to support it.

The Nationalist Case for Supporting Israel


The case is simple and can be summed up in one sentence. America should support Israel because they have a positive view of America and are longstanding Allies.

In the Israeli conflict we have two sides. The Palestinians who are at the very least affiliated with some jihadis who actively hate America and have no relations with us and Israel. In 2015 81% of Israelis viewed America positively and  Israel has been an American ally for the longest time.

The rationale is simple. We want to encourage more countries to be longstanding allies and to view America favorably and we want to punish countries who don’t so we can encourage the desired behavior from them. Does it mean that we should always blindly support our allies? Of course not. However the presumption of support must be given to our allies and that presumption must be stronger the longer the alliance lasts. For example if we had a new ally who was borderline in support towards us then a 60/40 case would be sufficient for us to consider the other side. For a longer ally like Britain or Israel a 70/30 or 80/20 case should be considered. In the case of Israel and Palestine, while both sides have valid arguments, they are close enough that our presumption should remain with Israel.

The counter argument is of course, would we not alienate more countries like Palestine in our quest to reward our allies? The answer is no. If we apply this consistently then nations will see there is a tangible benefit to becoming a long-term American ally and to popularize America with its population instead of demonizing it. For instance countries like the Philippines which love America should get much more foreign aid than Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern countries that hate it.

The reward MUST come after the change in behavior and not before. When you discipline a child do you reward him before he does the right thing? Or do you reward him after he gets good grades, does his homework, or a host of other things? The end result of this method of foreign policy should be an international community competing to who can be the best, most cooperative ally to be assured of US support. It is not a novel concept either. Supporting your allies and punishing your enemies have been around since ancient times. In fact the chinese have a saying “Do not trample over your old friends in your rush to make new”.

At the end of the day the issue itself is only tangential to how our decision is to be made. Unless the case is absurdly one-sided, which it is not in this case, then we must stand with our allies so we can create new allies in the future.

Transition: Foreign Policy


The left constantly says that Trump is a buffoon and unfit to be President. Lets take a look at what has been accomplished so far.

  1. Recognized Taiwan, a vibrant democracy with a liberal president, as a separate country from China and took their call. – Let me remind everyone that this is the first liberal President Taiwan has had and that the left celebrated when Obama normalized relationships with Cuba, a brutal dictatorship.
  2. Convinced Egypt to support Israel by dropping their resolution against Israel – The Obama administration was already ready to abandon Israel. Instead we are treated to a rare instance where Jews and Muslims cooperate on an international stage.
  3. Stood up to Putin when he declared they want more nukes – The left has declared that Trump is nothing more than a puppet for Putin. The puppet for Putin stood up to his declaration and challenged him to an arms race reminding Putin that the US could afford it and Russia could not. In his 8 years Obama has not stood up to Putin once.

Lets sum it up. Trump has recognized a liberal democracy, gotten a Jewish and a Muslim country to work together, and stood up to Putin on the world stage. And 2016 is not over yet.

At this rate Trump would have accomplished more before being sworn in than Obama has in his 8 years.

4D Chess: Sanctuary Cities


Today I’d like to discuss what I consider to be the most brilliant 4d chess move of President Trump to date. Sanctuary Cities. My personal moniker for it is “Operation turn Illinois and New York red.”

As everyone knows Trump ran on a platform that is against illegal immigration. Appointing Senator Sessions as Attorney General also shows that he is serious about this particular campaign pledge. It was then leaked that sanctuary cities may lose federal funding. This then prompted numerous cities in mainly democratic held areas like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles to promise that they would stay as sanctuary cities no matter what happened.

So who is the target? This is aimed at the poor and middle class citizens living in the big cities. If you recall in the election Trump overwhelmingly won the rural areas, was competitive in the suburbs, and normally lost in the cities themselves. Making inroads into some of these places means that future elections will be easier to win.

Under normal situations the democrats would be able to choose how to react. However due to their over the top fear mongering during the election they cannot choose to capitulate to Trump and help with the deportations. Their base would revolt. The only option they have is doubling down on their protection for illegal immigrants which is the best result Trump could hope for.

Let us analyze what the most likely scenario is. You have a President saying that he will let ICE and other enforcement agencies fulfill their duties while you have liberal cities declaring they will protect illegals come what may. An illegal alien has two options. He can either stay where he is and risk deportation or move to a city that guarantees he will be protected. Naturally some if not most will decide to move.

What happens if they move? First off they vacate the jobs they currently have and make it available to the citizens in the area. Will it be a good job? Most likely not, but it will still be required to pay minimum wage and the person working now spends all his money in the local community instead of sending half of it abroad to their home country, leading to more jobs being created in their home community. This helps fulfill the promise of more jobs.

What happens to the cities that the illegals go too? Logically once the illegals go there they will need a place to stay and they will need a source of income. Cities generally have limited space, an influx of new arrivals would mean that rental prices go up. There is also a limited number of available jobs. When the illegals get there they have an competitive advantage over the residents as they are willing to work for wages below the minimum which means that they will push out some of the current residents. Of course not all illegals will be able to find jobs so some will inevitably end up turning to crime to survive.

You can make an argument that when new residents arrive in an area they can be a positive impact on the area. Yet when new residents arrive they usually bring with them money, have a job and a place to stay waiting as well. Illegals would not be likely to have any of this.

We now have a situation where the poor and middle classes in the sanctuary cities face increased competition from illegals and possible exposure to more crimes. Any jobs taken by the illegals will contribute less to the community as well as some of the money will have to be sent abroad. Can they take out their anger on Trump? Sure that it is a possibility, but they are starting of as democratic strongholds already so it would not matter. Their ire would eventually fall on their local leaders who inflicted this upon them by forcing their cities to be sanctuaries which gets them to turn on them and vote for the other team or not vote at all.

A more extreme version of this is already happening in Germany as Merkel effectively declared the EU one giant sanctuary city with predictable effects. Of course we don’t expect our crop of illegals to be as violent as the islamic refugees so the process may take longer but with this 4-d chess move I fully expect Trump and his successor to be competitive in the cities in 4 or 8 years.