The list of languages by GDP by nominal exchange rates is roughly how I would rank the languages in terms of their importance. Mandarin might surpass English in the next thirty years, Russian might surpass Italian and Korean, Vietnamese might surpass Polish, and Spanish and Hindi-Urdu might surpass Japanese and German. Only the top 8 are major languages; those outside the top 13 are minor, and those outside the top 16 are generally not worth learning. Of the classical languages, Latin is probably the one most worth learning to English speakers because of the large shared vocabulary and it being widely used by Western European Medieval intellectuals. Attic Greek, classical Chinese, Sanskrit, and Middle Persian follow.
The chart says it all:
Needless to say, the title is completely misleading.
The swing to the Republicans from the primary to the general was, in both the Wisconsin and Michigan cases, clearly better correlated with Trump GOP primary vote share than Trump GOP+Dem primary vote share. Which makes sense, due to the Trump Democrats.
In both the Wisconsin and Michigan cases, the swing to Trump was uncorrelated with the Sanders share of the Democratic primary vote. However, multiple regression analysis reveals that (apparently as a result of counties like Ionia and Isabella in MI swinging to Trump) independent of other primary vote shares, Sanders share of GOP+Dem primary vote was correlated with a swing to Trump.
Heavily Dutch Ottawa County, MI (the only county in the region to vote for George McClellan in 1864, but which has always voted Republican since), has the second-lowest percentage of White voters voting for Obama in Michigan. The county just North of it is Muskegon, which had half its Whites going for Obama in 2012. What’s going on?
Muskegon had a similar electoral profile to its neighboring counties right up until the election of 1936, when it developed a substantial population of New Deal/Reagan Democrats. After the Reagan aura faded, it resorted back to voting Democratic.
Muskegon had a lower percentage voting for Cruz than any neighboring county, while the same percentage of those voting for Trump as neighboring Newaygo County.
|First Party System
|Second Party System
| Third Party System
|Fourth Party System
|Fifth Party System
|Sixth Party System
|Seventh Party System
|Vermont||Mostly Federalist||Solidly Whig||Solidly Republican||Solidly Republican||Solidly Republican||Mostly Republican||Solidly Democrat|
|Party of Business Interests-Hamiltonian Ends||Federalists||Whigs||Republicans||Republicans||Republicans||Republicans||Republicans|
|Party of Big Government- Hamiltonian Means||Federalists||Unquestionably Whigs (excluding Nullifiers)||Republicans, but tending to both||Both/Neither (tending away from Republicans)||Definitely Democrats||Definitely Democrats||Definitely Democrats|
|Party of Manhattan||Democrats||Democrats, mostly||Democrats||Democrats, mostly||Democrats||Democrats||Democrats|
|Party of Primary Industry||Democrats||Democrats, mostly||Democrats||Democrats in wheat, Republicans in coal||Republicans in wheat, Democrats in coal||Republicans in wheat, Democrats in coal||Definitely Republicans|
|Party of States’ Rights||Democrats||Democrats, for the most part||Democrats||Democrats, for the most part||Neither||Members on both sides, but leaning Republican||Republicans|
|Party of Free Trade||Democrats||Democrats, certainly||Democrats||Democrats||Democrats, but leaning Republicans||Generally Republicans||At this point, who knows? Mostly Republicans.|
|Black Party||No such thing.||Democrats (e.g., Van Buren)?||Definitely Republicans||Republicans||Democrats||Definitely Democrats||Definitely Democrats|
|Party of Militarism||Federalists||Democrats||Democrats at first, followed by Republicans during and after the war||Republicans||Both, but more Democrats||Republicans||Republicans|
|Party of East Virginia||Solidly Democrats||Solidly Democrats||Solidly Democrats||Mostly Democrats||Mostly Democrats||Solidly Republicans||Split -trending Democratic|
|Party of West Virginia||Split||Split||Split||Republicans||Mostly Democrats||Definitely Democrats||Definitely Republicans|
|Party of the Wrong Kind of White People||Democrats||Democrats||Definitely Democrats||Democrats||Generally Democrats, but trending Republican||Both, but trending Republican||Republicans|
|Party of Recent Immigrants||Democrats||Democrats||Democrats (whites only; no Asiatics allowed)||Democrats||Immigration mostly closed; irrelevant. Mostly Democrats.||Split, but more Democrats||Democrats|
|Party of Sound Money||Democrats||Democrats||Democrats||Republicans||Republicans||Republicans||Republicans|
|Party of Minnesota||N/A||N/A||Solidly Republicans||Republicans||Democrats||Solidly Democrats||Democrats|
|Party of Women’s Rights||Federalists||Both||Republicans||Republicans||Split, but more Republicans||Split, but strongly trending Democrats||Democrats|
|Wisconsin Southeast Germanic Party||N/A||Democrats||Democrats||Republicans||Split||Republicans||Republicans|
|Voter Turnout||Low||Soaring||High||Falling||Moderate and Stable||Moderate and Falling||Moderate and Rising|
|Polarization in Congress||Rising, peaking, and disappearing||Low and shrinking||High and rising||High and shrinking||Very Low and shrinking||Low and rising||High and rising|
|Party of serious Catholics||N/A||Split||Democrats||Mostly Democrats||Democrats||Democrats||Definitely Republicans|
|Most Democratic State||Kentucky||Arkansas, then Texas||Georgia||South Carolina||Mississippi or Georgia||Minnesota||Vermont|
|Least Democratic State||Connecticut||Massachusetts or Vermont||Vermont||Vermont||Vermont||Utah||Utah or Wyoming (Whites only: Mississippi)|
|Biggest Swing towards Democrats||N/A||Connecticut||Kentucky||Nebraska||Minnesota||Massachusetts||Vermont|
|Biggest Swing against Democrats||N/A||Kentucky||Illinois||Connecticut||Nebraska||Mississippi||West Virginia|
|Interstate Presidential Popular Vote Polarization||???||First Highest, then persistently Low||Moderate||Very High||Declining (High to Low)||Low-Moderate||High and Rising|
I absolutely despised Mitt Romney ever since I heard he was running in 2011. I openly supported Obama over him, though I didn’t vote. Romney was a bought finance-capitalist platitudinous robot who had a history of flip-flops, held positions no better than Obama, was unelectable, and had money in Bermuda, Switzerland, etc. Rubio’s act is much like that of a Cuban boy. Romney’s was literally robotic and totally inhuman. He was completely horrible and was incapable of making America great again. Naturally, this dogshit of a person went on to openly condemn a man whose endorsement he begged for back in 2012. Even though Donald J. Trump, the only man who can even remotely save the nation, won Rmoney’s home state on Super Tuesday with 49% of the vote-the highest support for the Donald yet seen in the nation- Rmoney still proceeded to smear Donald J. Trump, champion of the common man, with these blatant lies:
What he said on “60 Minutes” about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants. Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme.
-“We are fighting ISIS. And Assad is our enemy.” Trump’s words here were ambiguous. He didn’t actually say that, but did show agreement with the interviewer’s presentation of that sentiment. What he actually said was “Why aren’t we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?” The problem is, the full episode of 60 minutes Romney is talking about is not even available online for us to grasp the full context of what is Trump talking about.
1. Trump does not want the U.S. to get involved in anti-IS combat in Syria until the U.S. could build a new, non-Assad government there.
2. But, if Russia wants to prop up the Assad government, it can do that as well.
Here’s a video of Trump (as linked to by the Lord Keynes, a very Trumpian Berniebro, anti-Marxist, anti-SJW, anti-free-trade, anti-Austrian, anti-neoliberal, and anti-PoMo).
Note that Trump says absolutely nothing wrong and everything right in this video. As this is so, it is not the substance I’m gonna examine here, but the style.
Vladimir Putin today was at the UN,
so is Barack Obama.
They could not be more different when it comes to Syria.
Barack Obama saying he wants Bashar al-Assad removed from power;
Putin says he thinks that’s an enormous mistake, not to cooperate with Vladimir Putin,
which man is right?
so I’ve been saying this for a long time,
and I’ve kept it low.
and I really understand what’s going on in Syria,
because you look at it,
first of all, it’s a total catastrophe,
it’s a total mess,
and we’re helping to make it a mess.
Now we have ISIS.
And ISIS wants to go after Assad.
But we’re knocking the hell out of them,
even though it’s not a very full blown thing,
we’re still dropping bombs all over the place and
you know, look, they’re not exactly loving life over in Syria.
So we’re stopping them to a certain extent from going after Assad.
We have Russia, that’s now there.
Russia’s on the side of Assad
and Russia wants to get rid of ISIS as much as we do, if not more,
because they don’t want them coming in to Russia.
And I’m saying,
“Why are we knocking ISIS, and yet at the same time, we’re against Assad?”
Let them fight, take over the remnants,
but more importantly, let Russia fight ISIS, if they want to fight them.
Let them fight them.
Now we can fight them in Iraq,
but if you think about Iraq,
we’ve spent two trillion dollars,
thousands of lives lost,
wounded warriors who we love and I love all over the place-
why don’t we have it Iraq?-
And did you see-
You said you’d put ground troops in Iraq…
Well, what we’re going to have to do
As I’ve been glancing at some trends which might illustrate the changes in the incentives driving regions to become solidly part of a U.S. political party, I’ve been struck by the recent trend of party sorting. Fundamentally, the two American political parties are not ideological parties. Fundamentally, they are empty vessels that tend to get filled up by whatever ideas (not even necessarily ideologies) and personality types the voters see fit. Despite frequently voiced warnings, it is impossible for America to have a one-party future. Since neither of the parties can die, it is inevitable that they change with the times to become more attractive to the median voter.
The question for my time is “how”? With better party sorting, the parties will find it much more difficult to cross over.
The first question must be “where are the True Cores of the Republican and Democratic parties”?
At present, the ideological distance between House Republicans and Democrats is enormous. The Republican presidential candidate who is most popular among young Republicans (or at least used to be before the Rubio drop-out) is Ted Cruz, a fire-breathing ideologue (and demagogue) who is much further from the positions of the median voter than is Hillary Clinton. The Democratic presidential candidate who is by far most popular among young Democrats is Bernie Sanders, a fire-breathing ideologue who is much further from the positions of the median voter than is Hillary Clinton.
However, there are glimmers of hope. It is not Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders who are winning their respective races, but Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The True Core of the Democratic Party is becoming more and more minority-majority. The political preferences of young people are not fixed for all their lives; they can change over time.
It is extremely unlikely that Trump alone can change the Republican party.
Puritans evolved into Berniebros. Border Reviers evolved into Huckabee voters. Might modern-day Mormons evolve into Berniebros?
|Pre-Roman English–>||Puritans–>||19th Century Vermont, Western NY–>||Modern Vermont|
|17th Century Scots-Irish–>||Prohibition-era Scots-Irish–>||Modern Scots-Irish (Huckabee voters)|
|Syncretist–>||Social-Conservative-Non-Pluralist–>||Social Conservative-Pluralist–>||Irreligious -Hippie/SJW|
|Pre-Modern Africans||Modern Africans|
|Animist, non-doctrinaire -believe their religion||Monotheist, doctrinaire -still believe their religion. Height of moralism. Extremely high marriage rate.||Stopped believing their religion; now only believe in it. Still strongly moralist, but now quite ecumenical. High marriage rate.||No longer believe in their religion. The religion is now equality (whether, as in NYC, Social Justice, or, as in Vermont, economic equality). Tend toward the anti-neoliberal Left. Extremely low marriage rate.|
Once, while looking at the New York Times’s primary map, I found that Marco Rubio won the rich inner city voters of Atlanta, Cruz performed best in the middle-income suburbs, and Trump performed best in the White Georgian countryside.
I also examined the New York Times’s list of 2012 and 2016 exit polling results from Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. I found that there were basically four types of Republican candidates:
1. National Republicans -These are the candidates most likely to win the White Georgian countryside.
2. Conservative Republicans -These are the candidates most likely to win Iowa. Overtly religious. The marriage gap is strongest with these. Slightly more likely to win women then men. Strongest base is moral majority and values voters concerned about abortion.
3. Establishment Republicans -These are the candidates most likely to win Manhattan Island.
4. There are also Libertarian Republicans, who are most popular among young independent atheist men who admire true conservative ideology, principle, and character. Such candidates are strongly favored by their voters and win no last-day-deciders. Some overlap exists between voters for Libertarian Republicans with with Sanders voters. These candidates are most likely to win the youth.
Ted Cruz combines conservative, libertarian (he did best with young people, probably has a very strong marriage gap, and is overtly religious), and, in Wisconsin, possibly even establishment aspects. Huckabee and Rick Santorum combined national and conservative aspects. Trump combines national and libertarian aspects. Romney was what one might call an establishment guy, though his vote shares in the general election were similar to that of a conservative republican. Kasich is an establishment Republican through and through. Gingrich was a national Republican. Ron Paul was a libertarian republican.
As a rule, Establishment Republicans fail to connect much with voters.