All errors should be reported to

Thursday, June 25, 2020

Why liberals don't care if violence costs votes

Kenya-born Princeton professor Omar Wasow wrote a paper, "Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public Opinion and Voting," which looked at how both peaceful protests and violent protests affected voting. He found nonviolent protests worked, while violence did the opposite.

He wrote, "Counties proximate to nonviolent protests saw presidential Democratic vote share among whites increase 1.3%-1.6%. Protester-initiated violence, by contrast, helped move news agendas, frames, elite discourse and public concern toward social control. In 1968, using rainfall as an instrument, I find violent protests likely caused a 1.6%-7.9% shift among whites towards Republicans and tipped the election. Elites may dominate political communication but hold no monopoly."

I don't quite get the "using rainfall as an instrument" metaphor, but OK-dokie as another Kenyan politician might say.

Wasow did not condemn violence. Indeed, he called it moral. He merely said it is not a good strategy for winning an election.

He wrote, "A substantial body of work in political science suggests we should expect no meaningful political consequences to follow subordinate group agitation. The results of this article suggest that statistical minorities in stratified democracies can overcome structural biases to influence and frame the news, direct elite discourse, sway public opinion and win at the ballot box. For subordinate groups in democratic polities, though, tactics matter. An 'eye for an eye' in response to violent repression may be moral, but this research suggests it may not be strategic."

His argument against violence appalled liberals. Face it, Martin Luther King would have gone back to being a Republican if this crew were in charge of the Democrat Party 60 years ago.

John Sexton at Hot Air reported, "Earlier this month, Jonathan Chait wrote a piece about the firing of a progressive data analyst named David Shor. Shor was fired after tweeting out some research that supported the idea that 'race riots' wind up hurting the Democratic Party, an idea that many progressives find offensive."

Shor merely linked the piece, which merely pointed out the obvious that rioting, burning stores, and looting cost Democrats the 1968 election.

Why would liberals be so adamantly opposed to criticizing violence? They are not dumb. Misinformed and unpatriotic, yes, but they are pretty good at strategy. In the 1972 election, President Nixon argued Democrats stood for abortion, amnesty, and acid. He took 49 states. Yet within three months of his election, liberals had abortion and five years later, they had amnesty. I think they gave up on acid.

In 2008, California voted to ban gay marriage. Liberals went to court and made gay marriage a right.

Obviously, losing elections does not bother liberals because they can go around the will of the people through the courts (abortion and gay marriage) and by executive order (amnesty and DACA). Every now and then they pass a law (Obamacare) but they really prefer Supreme Court decisions because they are irreversible.

Liberals encourage violence in the hopes of hastening the end of America when they can replace it with a utopia of unicorns. Imagine no religion, no possessions, a brotherhood of man.

You know, North Korea.

I can see why liberals demanded Shor's firing.

Oh, liberals full know violence will cost them votes. They don't care because elections don't matter to them. They figured a way around elections. Until we have a John Roberts-proof majority on the Supreme Court, liberals have the upper hand.


  1. Which is why the mainstream misleadya always uses the word peaceful anytime they speak of the riots

  2. Obviously, losing elections does not bother liberals because they can go around the will of the people through the courts (abortion and gay marriage) and by executive order (amnesty and DACA). Every now and then they pass a law (Obamacare) but they really prefer Supreme Court decisions because they are irreversible.

    Tell it to Rosa Parks.

    A big problem with all this is Trump is appointing true Conservatives. The courts are no longer the Lefty playground they used to be.

    Also, we've seen EOs challenged in court. Guess what? Two-way street.

    What you're talking about was the old conventional wisdom of 80 years.

    It died with Donald Trump. I'd say the Lefties are going to find out even gooder and harder that elections have consequences.

    1. PS RBG, Breyer, and the Wise Latina.

      Trump could hit the trifecta.

    2. Unfortunately, some true conservative judges evolve over time. And they only evolve on one direction.

    3. Schlongy, do you know of a local doctor In your area who might be able to sew Gorsuch’s balls back on for him?

    4. Maybe Frank Abagnale can come out of retirement and perform the surgery.

  3. What did daddy Bush know about David Souter and when did he know it?

    What did W know about John Roberts and when did he know it.

    Who would have Jeb! nominated?
    Please clap

  4. 2021-2022 are gonna be THE most consequential years of my political life. It took the LibCommies 100 years to build. It will take Mr. T two years to knock it down, aided by comfy majorities in both chambers. Marching orders for R legislators: Show up, shut up, vote Yea. Sippy 5K, baby!

    1. Very positive sounding while disregarding the massive voter fraud/ballot harvesting coming in november. Lets pray things turn out as you hope though.

    2. Not with "friends" like McConnell or Ryan-like Speaker of the House. And if they win back House, Kevin McCarthy seems just like Ryan and Boenher

  5. Liberals believe in Unicorns and Rainbows.
    Communists just want power and death to those who disagree.

  6. They prefer Supreme Court decisions because they are irreversible? Like Justice Taney and Dred Scott? Sorry, but it becomes more evident every day the Democrats are arrogant self-deluding fools who are convinced they hold the moral high ground.

  7. How does anyone analyze the 1968 presidential election without including George Wallace?

    1. If George Wallace doesn't run, Humphrey wins. Most of his support would have either sat out or voted 'D' rather than vote for the party that made Georgia howl and took away their slaves.


  8. They get all of their "Justices" and half of ours.

    Gorsuch and Roberts just found a Constitutional Right to Transgenderism in the 1964 Civil Rights Act signed by LBJ. As if I needed one more reason to hate that fat bastard Johnson.

    The Feral Government just invented a new definition of men and women without consulting the society that will be coerced under their New State Morality.

    Time to Start Over.