Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Lady's room? Don't mind if I do

That a man who thinks he's a lass is no more a woman than a LARPer who thinks he's a minotaur is actually an anthropomorphic bull is obvious.

Pointing out that the gender bender stuff is all make believe isn't the most effective way to hold the line on this latest front in the Culture War, though.

Instead, a modest suggestion for men who favor living in a society where each person feels compelled to use the restroom that corresponds to his or her biological sex: Every time you go into Target (or any other retailer who adopts a free-for-all restroom policy) and nature calls, use the women's room. No need to make a production out of it. Just take care of business and be on your way. If anyone questions you, dismissively respond with how you're trying to get in touch with your feminine side.

To take it up another level, use the women's changing rooms as well.

If enough men do this eventually critical mass will be reached and something will have to change--something radical, like maybe reverting back to the restroom policy that worked for 99.997% of the population until last week.

Parenthetically, social conservatives will lose on this issue just like they lose on every other one. Instead of a radical response like the one suggested here they'll instead try to objectively rationalize against a chorus of "why do you HATE HATE HATE trannies?!". The battle is over before it even begins.

Libertarians will lose, too, though it'll take a little longer. Tranny free-for-all restroom privileges will eventually be legislated into existence or discovered by the courts at some point in the future. Currently the issue has life because a city legislated tranny restroom protection and a state legislated conventional restroom policy in response. In the future things like this will be moot because federal protections mandating private organizations allow people to use whatever restrooms they want to use will be in existence.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Trump outperforms polling expectations

++Addition2++In the 14 states that have gone since March 15, Trump has outperformed his RCP average in 13 of them, doing 4.7 points better than predicted.


++Addition++The table in the body of the post has been updated to include the results from April 26. Trump outperformed his RCP average in all five states, bringing the number of states he has outperformed polling predictions in up to 25 compared to 10 states where he fared worse than expected. Trump now averages 2.4 points better in actual results than in aggregate poll estimates.

Nate Silver continues to weep.


The stubborn belief that Trump has generally underperformed polling expectations came about after Iowa, a state where he in fact did do worse than the RCP average (which only includes polls taken less than two weeks out from the actual vote) predicted he would. He also fared more poorly than expected in Oklahoma and Kansas*. Excepting the cuck corridor, though, doing better than expected has been the rule rather than the exception.

Of the 30 states for which polling was conducted close to the preference vote, Trump did better than the RCP average expected he would in 20 of them and more poorly than expected in the remaining 10. Through New York, his average real performance shakes out to 1.6% more of the vote than polls predicted he would receive [Update: Through April 26, his average reals performance comes to 2.4% more of the total vote share than polls have predicted he would receive].

This tendency has been accentuated over the last month and a half. Of the nine states that have held their preference votes since March 15, Trump has exceeded RCP averages in eight of them, the only exception being North Carolina, where his polling average was 41.3% and his actual share of the vote was 40.2%. Even in Wisconsin he did marginally better than polls suggested he would. The story there was of Kasich's collapse, an implosion which redounded to Cruz's benefit.

The data are presented in the following table in descending order of actual performance vis a vis predicted performance:

StateRCPAvgActualBetter (worse)
Rhode Island52.363.8+11.5
New York53.160.4+7.3
New Hampshire31.235.3+4.1
South Carolina31.832.5+0.7
North Carolina41.340.2(1.1)

Nate Silver's 538 continues to perpetually calibrate as his site misses the mark again and again (538's expert panel predicted Trump would get 71 delegates in New York; he picked up 90 of the state's 95). Silver uses what he calls a "polls-plus forecast" that tries to take endorsements and the inverse of national polling into account (see here for more details if you're so inclined, but the formula is garbage so I'd suggest you save your time).

On the Republican side, endorsements have been toxic. Initially, ¡Jabe! enjoyed a huge endorsement advantage. After he was gutted, Rubio claimed the endorsement crown. Then he got sliced up and Cruz, who is in hail mary mode, now has the dubious distinction.

Almost without fail--I can't recall seeing a single state where it's been otherwise, but I'm not going to dig through the archives to make absolutely certain--this "polls-plus" forecast shows Trump doing worse than the polling average alone does (see Indiana to get an idea of the usual gap; polls give Trump a 77% chance but polls-plus only a 45% chance).

This is in spite of the fact that Trump mostly outperforms polling averages! So the "polls forecast" slightly underestimates Trump's performances and then the "polls-plus forecast" underestimates them even more, yet Silver keeps putting more emphasis on the latter.

* I made several hundred dollars betting on the outcome in my home state. It's a closed caucus and it went for Huckabee in '08 and Santorum in '12. Kansas always goes for the theocrat.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

White men favor biologically-based restroom usage; Women, gays, Hispanics good with gender bender make believe

A Reuters-Ipsos poll finds that Americans who think a person should be required to use the restroom that corresponds with his or her sex narrowly outnumber those who feel the restroom designations are merely suggestive, 52.1%-47.9%, with "don't know" responses excluded (n = 2,850).

White men drive the overall preference for biologically-based restrooms, favoring use corresponding to sex, 58.3%-41.7% (n = 677).

And by a margin of more than 3-to-1, 75.4%-24.6%, conservative white men oppose men using women's restrooms (n = 389). When they're removed from the equation, the non-conservative white male majority opinion is that sex designations don't matter.

Since conservative white men should of course be removed from everything this is to be treated as the de facto national consensus!

Women, across races and political orientations, are more likely than men to favor gender bender make believe.

Hispanics, who we are told are "natural conservatives"--or at any rate, were told; do cuckservatives even bother making this argument anymore?--favor allowing a person to use whatever restroom he or she wants to use irrespective of sex, 52.3%-47.7% (n = 174).

Z suspects many gays resent the tranny stuff:
Homosexuals, like all minority populations, back the winner. Given the general lunacy on display, gays rightly see the lunatics as the winner. That said, I suspect a lot of gays resent the tranny stuff. From what I gather, homosexuals have never liked the trannies. Plus, this probably feels like a bridge too far. Gays could be concerned about where things are headed.
Gays and bisexuals are on board with this, at least publicly. While 78.3% are in favor of allowing people to use whichever restrooms they want just 21.7% are opposed (n = 219).

White men are about the only ones who will publicly refuse to assent to the CultMarx order of the day, so this result isn't surprising.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Nothing left to conserve

Charlotte empowers a fraction of 1% of the population to rub their insecurities in the faces of the 99% and change who find sex-segregated restrooms a uncontroversial aspect of civilized society. The state of North Carolina responds by mandating sex-segregated restrooms, legally overriding Charlotte's tranny triumph.

The state law only applies to schools and other government organizations so private companies are still free to enforce restroom usage policies as they see fit. Big businesses will happily allow trannies to do whatever they want to do, but smaller businesses may object to a tranny testing the water in an opposite sex restroom before being blasted to kingdom come by the full weight of the Establishment and their ever-zealous volunteer thought police. This is another skirmish in World War T, the ultimate outcome of which should not be in doubt.

Social conservatives will lose here, just as they lose on everything else--prayer in schools, abortion, same-sex marriage, drug legalization, and on and on. Going tit in reaction to the progressive tat always fails. The left's thesis is met by the right's antithesis and the new synthesis is somewhere in between where things were and where the left ultimately wants them to be. Then from the new location another tat brings on a tit. This happens time after time all over the place and after awhile the left has gained every inch of ground it was fighting for. Then it sets its sights on something new. It' happened with same-sex marriage and now it's happening with the trannies.

The federal apparatus has found or is in the process of finding a right not be discriminated against for every self-asserted identity no matter how deviant or absurd the putative identity is (heterosexual white male goys excepted). This inalienable right has marched through nearly every institution in society. When some retrograde entity objects, these institutions converge on said entity and crush it to smithereens. And that CultMarx institutional alliance isn't merely nationwide, it's global. Great Britain has issued a warning to people travelling to North Carolina in response to the bill.

Instead of trying to clumsily react to the left, the North Carolinas of the world should champion the right to free association as the ultimate liberty worth protecting in a free society. Or at least they should have. That ship sailed a long, long time ago.

Parenthetically, the attack on Trump for waving off North Carolina's reaction--from the same cucks who piled on him for asserting that if abortions are illegal there should be consequences for initiating them--is much ado about nothing.

Trump doesn't care about the Culture War stuff. This would be a non-priority in a Trump administration, and they all know it. He only talked about it because he was asked to. Revealingly, his biggest concern was one that shouldn't be unexpected from a business magnate, especially a person in construction--could this issue, like the incalculably wasteful boondoggle that is the ADA, end up requiring businesses to install additional tranny restrooms that will end up being used about as often as the handicapped parking stalls right in front of QuikTrips' entrances are?

The people leading the assault on North Carolina style themselves "progressive". It's more semantically precise than "liberal" since this is hardly about maximizing personal freedoms. A handful of people are free to invade the comprised space of the vast majority of the population that no longer finds itself free to abide by an overturned social custom that until last week everyone in America found perfectly agreeable.

Those of us on the right, broadly defined, should take a cue and ditch the term "conservative". There isn't much left to conserve, and every day that cache dwindles down further. Harriet Tubman's importance, such as it is, is symbolic. What she allegedly did--helped several slave families escape slavery--while impactful on an individual level, was historically trivial. It is utterly dwarfed by comparison to the lives of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, or Franklin.

But she was brave, courageous, and suffered some hard knocks. Okay, well Jackson was nearly sliced in two by a captor's sword when he was a teenager. He put his life on the line in New Orleans to beat a larger British force when it wasn't even necessary to do so. Then he was elected president of the United States. He took it to the merciless Indian savages at a time when the country was pushing relentlessly westward. He was a larger-than-life character, a populist who obliterated the second national bank and a pugilist who stared down a bullet in the chest before returning the favor, replete with lethal enhancement.

He's a racist white Southerner, though (excuse the triple redundancy there). She's an oppressed twofer. And so another bit of American heritage worth preserving is relegated to the dustbin of history.

What, exactly, has occurred over the last six-plus decades that is worth conserving? The demographic replacement of America's founding population? Abortion on demand? Deficit spending? An ever-growing welfare state? Affirmative action? Sanctified buggery? Messianic democracy-spreading? Really, what is there? Dropping the sarcasm for a moment, maybe lower marginal tax rates for individuals? Yes, we'll trade that for the house in a heartbeat!

Conservatism is fast becoming synonymous with cuckservatism. As Heartiste so eloquently puts it:
Republican pundits, pols, and voters who surrender to leftoid race equalism premises in order to curry favor with the gatekeepers of polite discourse. Rhetorically, cuckservatives sell out their children’s and their nation’s future, and their ancestors’ pasts, on the altar of liberal dogma, in practice “raising another man’s ideology”. And they do so oblivious to the humiliations they visit upon themselves.
"Nationalist" is problematic for similar reasons. The nation is all of the things listed above. Many of us have become barbarians living inside the gates. "Antiquarian", perhaps? That could extend back to a conservatism that predating living memories, but fetishizing things like the Constitution are losing propositions, too. We've had the Constitution from the beginning and now Bruce Jenner has the right to walk into the stall next to your five year-old daughter. "Identitarian" is okay but it's difficult to articulate succinctly. "Citizenist" is more actionable. In the meantime, Alt-Right serves as a great placeholder, or even a larger umbrella term under which several like those mentioned above will exist.

Secession, nullification, poolside.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Milo Yiannopolous says gays are shifting away from cultural Marxism

Nero asserts that gays are shifting away from the CultMarx left:

Maybe he's detecting the seminal stages of an impending shift but I suspect self-projection may be clouding his judgment.

I'd happily be proven wrong. Here, however, is how deviant sexual support shakes out in Reuters-Ipsos general election polling in a Trump vs Clinton match up (n = 683):

That's quite similar to the bugger drubbing Romney took in 2012:

This is more of an academic question than one of crucial electoral importance. Gays and bisexuals make up no more than 5% of the total electorate and tend to have demographic characteristics that favor the left (single, urban, irreligious, etc) even before sexuality is taken into account.

Yes, looking at the data here we see that Obama's strong margin of victory among gays was what gave him the edge over Romney, as both fared equally well among heterosexuals. But just like in the case of whites vis-a-vis Hispanics, if Republicans managed to do a few points better among heterosexuals the apparent electoral importance of gays would disappear.