We had elections this week for various kinds of state and local positions. The results were mixed, pluses and minuses, but it looked to me like mostly minuses. On the plus side:
voters in Washington State rejected a measure to legalize Affirmative Action.
Specifically, a yes vote would:
allow Affirmative Action policies by the state of Washington in the areas of public education, public employment, and public contracting as long as such policies do not constitute preferential treatment (as defined) and do not use quotas.
Of course the entire point of Affirmative Action is to give preferential treatment to favored groups, and quotas are the only way you can do so without risking legal trouble. Everybody understands this, but everyone has to pretend not to. Thanks to the voters of Washington State — well, 52 percent of them — for giving a good kick in the shins to the whole dishonest sham.
Voters in Tucson, Arizona voted down an Initiative that would have made Tucson a “Sanctuary City” — or Treason Town, as VDARE.com prefers to call them.
This initiative was in reaction to the famous law passed in 2010 by the state legislature, and signed by then-governor Jan Brewer, right, giving state law enforcement powers to help enforce federal immigration laws.Kritarchs of course struck down most of the law, but left it OK for officers to check a suspect’s immigration status. The idea of the Initiative: to kill that last surviving portion of the 2010 law — to finish the job the kritarchs left un-finished. Instead, voters killed the initiative, leaving the law standing.
Texans voted by nearly 75 percent to 25 for an amendment raising that simple majority of legislators to two-thirds, while still requiring also a majority of voters.
Texas is one of just seven states without a personal income tax. (Pop quiz: How many of the other six can you name?) The Texas state constitution says there can only be a state income tax if it’s approved by a majority of legislators and a majority of voters in referendum. So with the state constitution thus amended, now it’s even harder than it was before to get an income tax passed in Texas.
But nationwide most of the news was bad for President Trump and his party.
In Virginia, Democrats now control both houses of the state legislature for the first time in 26 years.
The GOP candidate for governor of Kentucky lost, in spite of Trump having staged a big rally in his support on Monday night. He only lost by a whisker — less than half of one percent — but still … Kentucky!
There’s a pattern though, if you look for it. So at any rate says Daniel Horowitz over at Conservative Review. I'll let him explain:
On critical issues, especially on issues like immigration and crime, Republicans are not as emphatically to the right as Democrats are to the left …
How else do you explain, on the one hand, Republican issues winning overwhelmingly in urban and very Hispanic Tucson, but on the other hand, GOP candidates losing tremendous ground in suburbs, even in red states like Mississippi? …
Voters in no way support the extreme agenda of the Democratic Party, certainly not those living in suburban neighborhoods in the south. But the Republican Party is a terrible vehicle for promoting a bold contrast.
I think Daniel Horowitz has caught on to an important truth there. As the great political analyst Osama bin Laden once said: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse."
The Democratic Party is the strong horse here. Their ideas are wrong-headed, frequently crazy, but they pursue political victory with vigor and conviction.
The Republicans are the weak horse. They have much more sensible ideas, but they are hobbled by their globalist business donors, and they half-believe the cant out of media and the academy that national sovereignty, demographic stability, and realism about sex and race are immoral.
Democrats are bold and loud, Republicans are timid and apologetic. Strong horse, weak horse.
