This election may schock everyone

[Globalcitizen12]

• Tweet

The silent majority.. . In Kenya the ground has shifted. This is a change election. it is the economy stupid.

There is a genuine concern that the county is not better than it was in 2013.

Kenyans voted for TNA To deliver real tangible change. Transformative change in all sectors.. A new way of thinking.. The young voters wanted to move away  from government of cronyism and mediocrity to a government of merit.. When Uhuru appointed Moi age mates to government posts and klepocrat kids everyone knew that the promise has been broken. When the word Tenderprenuer became synonomous with UHuruto regime then no amount of PR could convince Independent and highly educated young Kenyans that the government they voted for had not lost direction.

There is deafening silence among Kikuyu elites they know that they cannot in good conscience defend Uhuru government. The vocal ones defected after NYS saga and started exploring for third way.. When that was thwarted by NIS they decided to support ODM covertly in hope Uhuru and Ruto can be stopped.

The only group that is still vocal is the diehard tribalists and Tenderprenuers who are milking this Jubilee Dying cow one more time before it is slaughtered n\in August



The silent majority especially in Jubilee strongholds have decided to let the ballot talk. My buddy who is non vocal just came back from Kenya and he told me that most people are disappointed by lack of tangible development. The roads that Kibaki did well to recarpet in Kiambu have been damaged and since it easier to tarmac a road in rural Kenya than to maintain it most have become a mess.. The youth those that are no 23 years have come to realize that the lofty manifesto sold to them by Jubilee was just a campaign wishful thinking. They want to send the message to the political class. Most wont be voting and if they do they will cast a protest vote. When my friend asked if they are not concerned of their fate as a tribe they said they only voted for Jubilee to be transformative and since this didn't happen they would care less and their quip to him "uhuru to win will have to rig".

In rural Rift valley there is also tidbits of folks coming out to their friends on their plan to vote for NASA but not openly saying it because they do not want to face backlash.

Young Kikuyus and Kalenjins may have one up their sleeve

like those white males that lined up and pulled the lever for Trump without letting anyone know they would do it..

Ruto and perception that Uhuru cronies have engaged in plundering govt resources is Jubilee Achilles heel.. Up to March Jubilee was overly confident and arrogant but the carpet is getting pulled under their feet and now there is an inkling that the center may not hold

Kenyans over 45 years will vote on MOAS Trend but anyone below 45 will vote on bread and butter issues..

The single important issue in this election is CORRUPTION and how to secure OUR Economy from free fall..

Raila and CO must now tell wanjiku what is wrong with the anemic economy and how they plan to fix it...

They must link the economic turmoil to years of National GOVERNMENT Wanton looting and corruption

They must ask Kenyans are you better than you were in 2013

time is now to show that Githinji, Kabura, Waigurus, ruto, Kiunjuri a billionaire in two decades, of Kenya are the rule in jubilee junta not the exception

It is time of NASA to give the young women and men of all tribes a hope that politics must not be a zero sum game.

It is time to unite Kenyans under the banner that the lives will be transformed despite being away from center of power

NASA must tell the young Kenyans that any money that will be borrowed on their behalf for infrastructure projects like SRG will be done so by their own public participation and vetting. All deals will have a sunshine clause where they will be done in transparent manner. Wanjiku will be able to get every granular detail of any project without having to beg for this information.

NASA government will a government by the people for the people.

It is a dark day in Kenya and it has been a rather depressing 5 years of seeing our hope for a better tomorrow getting destroyed by a cabal of few.

NASA will be a transition government. It will be the government that will give Kenyans a template on how to resist the urge to join cabals but to fight on and win

[Kichwa]

RV's argument is that the majority of Kenyans vote purely along tribal lines and that no issue matters. The argument is based on false premise that Kenyans are not sophisticated enough to vote on issues/ideology.   I will not accept that argument no matter how many times his MOAS coincides with a winner. There is really nothing sophisticated about voting on issues/ideology.  All human beings old enough to appreciate politics have an ideology.  Even voting along tribal lines is based on ideology.  A white person in America voting for Trump because he believes only a white male can be president is not more sophisticated than an African voting for his tribesmate.  Also, the notion that Africans cannot share a political ideology with someone who is not a member of his tribe is false on its face because there are just too many examples. RV pundits argument is that there maybe a few Kenyans who will vote across tribal lines but they are not enough to make a difference.  This is also not true for Kenya because there is truly no dominant tribe.  I strongly believe that an issue such as the economy can change tribal votes.  Most kikuyus will vote for Ouru but enough may stay home or vote for NASA to change this elections.  If Pundit's word was God's word on this issue then Ouru would not bother campaigning in central province.  Kenyans will break from this tribal vote phenomenon very soon and it could start with this elections. Every political season is different and all you need is different issues, different times, different candidates and you will get different voting patterns. 

[MOON Ki]

Kenyans will vote  like the tribal sheep that they are and have always been.   Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming.

[Kichwa]

Change only comes through dreamers and therefore its a badge of honor  to be labeled a dreamer.  I remember when Kibaki made the mugumo tree analogy to those who dared dream for a multiparty state. I also remember the days when Raila used to talk about the virtues of devolution to bored audiences in the US.  I have been around the block long enough not to ignore dreams.    I am glad this world is full of dreamers.

Kenyans will vote  like the tribal sheep that they are and have always been.   Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming.

[MOON Ki]

Change only comes through dreamers and therefore its a badge of honor  to be labeled a dreamer.  I remember when Kibaki made the mugumo tree analogy to those who dared dream for a multiparty state. I also remember the days when Raila used to talk about the virtues of devolution to bored audiences in the US.  I have been around the block long enough not to ignore dreams.    I am glad this world is full of dreamers.

You seem to assume that "dreamer" means the same thing no matter its usage.  Not quite so.    Consider the difference between the following:

(a) A person who imagines something or some situation that does not yet exist (but which is within the realms of possibility) and then goes to work or at least help in bringing it about.  For example, Martin Luther King "dreaming of a nation ... " or, as you note, some Kenyans imagining a "multi-party" state.

(b) A person who  imagines something or some situation that does not yet exist (and which is very unlikely to exist) and who does bugger-all to bring it about.   For example, a person whose entire personal financial plans are based on imagined success in the lottery.

I meant dreamer in the latter sense.   But regardless of the type of dreaming that one prefers and what one does about it, Kenyan elections in 2017 will be as usual.   Best to save for another day any planned  transition from (b) to (a).

And, contrary what some hackneyed phrases  suggests in song and film, the world could actually do with fewer dreamers: as it is, there are more of Type (b)  than of Type (a).

[Nefertiti]

The odds that merit will override tribalism is pretty slim indeed. Like Global himself observed a few weeks ago, increased socioenomic development - urbanization, education, integration - will weed out tribalism in time. This time is taunted as 50-100yrs by Pundit. I am a firm believer in DISRUPTION aka rapid transformation, which can be driven by unexpected scenarios such as drought, war, booms. Raila's key talking point is "bei ya maisha imepanda", before proceeding to trump that Jubilee's corruption and incompetence has caused these problems. This nature's opportunity creates a window for Uhuru to fail and Ruto's tribal strategy to be upended. There is no proper reason Kenyans must wait to move to towns, get degrees or intermarry to start picking leaders by merit.

[MOON Ki]

The odds that merit will override tribalism is pretty slim indeed. Like Global himself observed a few weeks ago, increased socioenomic development - urbanization, education, integration - will weed out tribalism in time. This time is taunted as 50-100yrs by Pundit. I am a firm believer in DISRUPTION aka rapid transformation, which can be driven by unexpected scenarios such as drought, war, booms. Raila's key talking point is "bei ya maisha imepanda", before proceeding to trump that Jubilee's corruption and incompetence has caused these problems. This nature's opportunity creates a window for Uhuru to fail and Ruto's tribal strategy to be upended. There is proper reason Kenyans must wait to move to towns, get degrees or intermarry to start picking leaders by merit.

Yes, "disruption" does work; and I have noted that elsewhere.  But in place like Kenya it has to be savage enough.   PEV => New Constitution.  But drought?   How many of those have we had and with what political effect?

Talking about corruption should be done, but, as things stand, it really won't do much good.    Kenyans don't actually object to corruption; what they object to is "those other people" doing the eating.    As I have already noted elsewhere, the last "major" anti-corruption demonstration in Nairobi, a city of millions, had about 30 people---half of them Boniface Mwangi and some NGO types doing their day-job.   And take a look at the primaries: how many of those candidates would be there if people really cared about corruption, integrity, etc.?   The basic attitude doesn't change at the "higher levels".  The only thing that changes is the perceived stakes---i.e., "think of what we can get to eat with our person there!".   "Our people" will go with "our thief".

[Kichwa]

You used the word "dreaming" to negatively characterize an opinion I expressed.  All I did was to use the word "dreamer" to positively defend my long standing position on this matter of tribal voting.  Now you are trying too hard to limit my usage of the word and its coming across as very condescending.  lets go back to debating the real issues and lets spare each other these silly lectures.

Change only comes through dreamers and therefore its a badge of honor  to be labeled a dreamer.  I remember when Kibaki made the mugumo tree analogy to those who dared dream for a multiparty state. I also remember the days when Raila used to talk about the virtues of devolution to bored audiences in the US.  I have been around the block long enough not to ignore dreams.    I am glad this world is full of dreamers.

You seem to assume that "dreamer" means the same thing no matter its usage.  Not quite so.    Consider the difference between the following:

(a) A person who imagines something or some situation that does not yet exist (but which is within the realms of possibility) and then goes to work or at least help in bringing it about.  For example, Martin Luther King "dreaming of a nation ... " or, as you note, some Kenyans imagining a "multi-party" state.

(b) A person who  imagines something or some situation that does not yet exist (and which is very unlikely to exist) and who does bugger-all to bring it about.   For example, a person whose entire personal financial plans are based on imagined success in the lottery.

I meant dreamer in the latter sense.   But regardless of the type of dreaming that one prefers and what one does about it, Kenyan elections in 2017 will be as usual.   Best to save for another day any planned  transition from (b) to (a).

And, contrary what some hackneyed phrases  suggests in song and film, the world could actually do with fewer dreamers: as it is, there are more of Type (b)  than of Type (a).

[Kichwa]

 If we agree that this elections is very close-if free and fair- then a very small odd of how people vote may can change the outcome.  Kenya has 42 tribes and only only two tribes have a candidate at the top of the ticket.  Lets give those two 100% of their tribesmates. Then we have two tribes with their tribesmates running for the deputy president- let us give them 80% of their tribes mate.  That leaves us with 38 tribes and  maybe 40 percent of the votes that can be swayed either way.

The US presidential elections starts with almost 40% Republican Damu and 40% Democrats Damu. The swing vote is sometimes less than 20% and that is what they fight for.

Nobody is claiming that Kenyans will not vote for their tribesmates or party but there is enough swing votes in Kenya that can swing either way.   The conventional wisdom that  "Kenyans only vote on tribal lines" and that it will take 100 years for that to change  is so entrenched that most Kenyans are scared to even open up their minds to a contrary argument.

The odds that merit will override tribalism is pretty slim indeed. Like Global himself observed a few weeks ago, increased socioenomic development - urbanization, education, integration - will weed out tribalism in time. This time is taunted as 50-100yrs by Pundit. I am a firm believer in DISRUPTION aka rapid transformation, which can be driven by unexpected scenarios such as drought, war, booms. Raila's key talking point is "bei ya maisha imepanda", before proceeding to trump that Jubilee's corruption and incompetence has caused these problems. This nature's opportunity creates a window for Uhuru to fail and Ruto's tribal strategy to be upended. There is proper reason Kenyans must wait to move to towns, get degrees or intermarry to start picking leaders by merit.

[MOON Ki]

If we agree that this elections is very close-if free and fair- then a very small odd of how people vote may can change the outcome.  Kenya has 42 tribes and only only two tribes have a candidate at the top of the ticket.  Lets give those two 100% of their tribesmates. Then we have two tribes with their tribesmates running for the deputy president- let us give them 80% of their tribes mate.  That leaves us with 38 tribes and  maybe 40 percent of the votes that can be swayed either way.

Nobody is claiming that Kenyans will not vote for their tribesmates or party but there is enough swing votes in Kenya that can swing either way.   The conventional wisdom that  "Kenyans only vote on tribal lines" and that it will take 100 years for that to change  is so entrenched that most Kenyans are scared to even open up their minds to a contrary argument.

I can't speak for others, but when I talk of Kenya voting along tribal lines, what I mean is that tribe is the most reliable indicator of how Kenyans will vote.   The "tribal voting" itself occurs in two ways:

(a) those who have a tribesman in the race will vote to support that tribesman and his friends;

(b) those who don't have a tribesman in the race still vote as a tribe, aligning themselves with one of the big ones.

What I find especially interesting argument is something like red above.  What is the basis for your willingness to go along with that assumption.

And when, as you suggest, 60% of the votes can be allocated on a purely tribal basis (a), is that not sufficient reason to say that the country votes on a tribal basis?

P.S. I apologize  if the "tone" or my earlier "post" offended you.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

If we agree that this elections is very close-if free and fair- then a very small odd of how people vote may can change the outcome.  Kenya has 42 tribes and only only two tribes have a candidate at the top of the ticket.  Lets give those two 100% of their tribesmates. Then we have two tribes with their tribesmates running for the deputy president- let us give them 80% of their tribes mate.  That leaves us with 38 tribes and  maybe 40 percent of the votes that can be swayed either way.

Nobody is claiming that Kenyans will not vote for their tribesmates or party but there is enough swing votes in Kenya that can swing either way.   The conventional wisdom that  "Kenyans only vote on tribal lines" and that it will take 100 years for that to change  is so entrenched that most Kenyans are scared to even open up their minds to a contrary argument.

I can't speak for others, but when I talk of Kenya voting along tribal lines, what I mean is that tribe is the most reliable indicator of how Kenyans will vote.   The "tribal voting" itself occurs in two ways:

(a) those who have a tribesman in the race will vote to support that tribesman and his friends;

(b) those who don't have a tribesman in the race still vote as a tribe, aligning themselves with one of the big ones.

What I find especially interesting argument is something like red above.  What is the basis for your willingness to go along with that assumption.

And when, as you suggest, 60% of the votes can be allocated on a purely tribal basis (a), is that not sufficient reason to say that the country votes on a tribal basis?

Even those without a bull in the fight still vote according to tribe.  They vote whichever way their tribal leaders tell them to.  If Weta suddenly decides he likes the jubilant, the Bukusu portion of the Luhya will, shift without missing a beat or batting an eyelid, to the jubilant side. 

The so called battle-ground undecided fights still involve enticing the tribes by promising their respective leaders goodies.  Whoever is most convincing in that respect gets the tribal vote.  They are not undecided because of some issues(corruption, economic vision, maize etc).  But rather because they have not made up their minds which of the main groupings promises are most credible for their tribal leaders.

[Kichwa]

Windy. I truly appreciate your response because its not the usual condescending knee jerk response that I get.   The  argument is that Kenyans do not vote based on ideology/issues but purely based on tribe.

My argument is that the two are not mutually exclusive. We vote along tribal lines because we believe that its in our political interest to do so. It is a very strong belief based on historical reasons and therefore rational.  My argument is that IF you can convince Kenyans that their tribes mate will not necessarily serve their best political interest or that it is may even be against their political interest to vote for a particular candidate even though he is of their tribe , then I believe that Kenyans are capable of voting against their tribes mate. There are example where Kenyans have voted against their family members or against their clans man and therefore I believe that they are capable of voting against a tribes mate. 

Is it true that there is a very strong correlation between the tribe of the candidate and how his/her tribes mate vote, but it is not cause/effect relationship.  Some people ask me what is the difference.  I say that if its a cause/effect relationship then there is very little we can do about it. However, if it is based on false belief or on a long standing tradition then it should not take 100 years to change.

It defies logic to assert that the Kenyan presidential contest is over as soon as we know the political identities of the candidates and a MOAS is put together.  Its been that way more because of the Raila/Kenyatta factors which has more to do with historical facts than even tribe.  As soon as these two are out of the way, its going to be very difficult for MOAS to work.

If we agree that this elections is very close-if free and fair- then a very small odd of how people vote may can change the outcome.  Kenya has 42 tribes and only only two tribes have a candidate at the top of the ticket.  Lets give those two 100% of their tribesmates. Then we have two tribes with their tribesmates running for the deputy president- let us give them 80% of their tribes mate.  That leaves us with 38 tribes and  maybe 40 percent of the votes that can be swayed either way.

Nobody is claiming that Kenyans will not vote for their tribesmates or party but there is enough swing votes in Kenya that can swing either way.   The conventional wisdom that  "Kenyans only vote on tribal lines" and that it will take 100 years for that to change  is so entrenched that most Kenyans are scared to even open up their minds to a contrary argument.

I can't speak for others, but when I talk of Kenya voting along tribal lines, what I mean is that tribe is the most reliable indicator of how Kenyans will vote.   The "tribal voting" itself occurs in two ways:

(a) those who have a tribesman in the race will vote to support that tribesman and his friends;

(b) those who don't have a tribesman in the race still vote as a tribe, aligning themselves with one of the big ones.

What I find especially interesting argument is something like red above.  What is the basis for your willingness to go along with that assumption.

And when, as you suggest, 60% of the votes can be allocated on a purely tribal basis (a), is that not sufficient reason to say that the country votes on a tribal basis?

Even those without a bull in the fight still vote according to tribe.  They vote whichever way their tribal leaders tell them to.  If Weta suddenly decides he likes the jubilant, the Bukusu portion of the Luhya will, shift without missing a beat or batting an eyelid, to the jubilant side. 

The so called battle-ground undecided fights still involve enticing the tribes by promising their respective leaders goodies.  Whoever is most convincing in that respect gets the tribal vote.  They are not undecided because of some issues(corruption, economic vision, maize etc).  But rather because they have not made up their minds which of the main groupings promises are most credible for their tribal leaders.

[MOON Ki]

Windy. I truly appreciate your response because its not the usual condescending knee jerk response that I get.   My argument is usually that Kenyans do not vote based on ideology/issues but purely based on tribe.  My argument is that the two are not mutually exclusive. We vote along tribal lines because we strongly believe that its in our political interest to do so-that our tribes mate will favor us politically if they get into office.  My argument is that IF you can convince Kenyans that their tribes mate will not serve their interest or that it is may even be against their interest if their tribes mate win, then I believe that Kenyans can vote against their tribes mate.  Is it true that their is a very strong correlation between the tribe of the candidate and how his tribes mate vote, but it is not cause/effect relationship, as others are saying to me its a mere correlation.  Some people ask me what is the difference.  I say that if its a cause/effect relationship then their is very little you can do about it. However, if it is based on false belief or a long standing tradition that a tribes political interest is better served by a tribes mate then we can change that with the power of persuasion/campaign, not in 100 years because it has been done before. Ouru and Raila campaigns believe that they can sway others with issues and that is why they are spending a lot of time in Kisii, Western province, Northestern and all these other areas which they consider swing votes and not locked into 100% tribal vote.

I, for one, have not stated, or suggested, or implied, that it is a cause-and-effect thing; what I have stated is that tribe is the most reliable indicator, and I have yet to see a convincing argument to prove me wrong.  Why that is so is something I cannot readily explain, but that it is how it is.   And I will now go beyond that: there is not the slightest indicator that 2017 will be any different.

Perhaps it will change in the future.   In order to explore that, perhaps you could tell us when red happened and why.   

[Kichwa]

I am glad you have watered it down to a "reliable indicator". I have no disagreement with that and it is a far cry from previous arguments where it has been taunted as the "only indicator".  Personally I think it is only reliable when combined with Kenyatta/jaramogi epic political differences which was strategically made into luo/kikuyu rivalry and which  other tribes learned to join and take sides with based on their political interest at any given time.

The Jaramogi/Kenyattaa rivalry has survived for a very long because it  was originally based on ideology and then tribalized and weaponized  to the extent that the ideological differences were completed covered reduced to  tribal differences for expediency and effectiveness. (the kikuyu oath taking was very strategic to achieve this goal.  Kenyattaa knew he would lose the ideological argument so he tribalized it) The reason why luos belief kikuyus are thieves and kikuyus believe luos lazy/complainers is right out of the capitalism/communism play book but now it is looked upon more of a tribal trait than an ideological argument.

 Kikuyus and luos are not neighbors, have no land issues, cattle issues, and other causes of tribal animosities and therefore have no reason to hate each other the way they do if not for the ideological differences between Jaramogi and Kenyattaa. This is therefore an ideological difference and not tribal although it appears so to a naked eye because that is what it was made to be for it to work to Kenyattaa's interest. Its the gift that keeps on giving to the Kenyattaa family and people like Ruto who have tapped into it.

Windy. I truly appreciate your response because its not the usual condescending knee jerk response that I get.   My argument is usually that Kenyans do not vote based on ideology/issues but purely based on tribe.  My argument is that the two are not mutually exclusive. We vote along tribal lines because we strongly believe that its in our political interest to do so-that our tribes mate will favor us politically if they get into office.  My argument is that IF you can convince Kenyans that their tribes mate will not serve their interest or that it is may even be against their interest if their tribes mate win, then I believe that Kenyans can vote against their tribes mate.  Is it true that their is a very strong correlation between the tribe of the candidate and how his tribes mate vote, but it is not cause/effect relationship, as others are saying to me its a mere correlation.  Some people ask me what is the difference.  I say that if its a cause/effect relationship then their is very little you can do about it. However, if it is based on false belief or a long standing tradition that a tribes political interest is better served by a tribes mate then we can change that with the power of persuasion/campaign, not in 100 years because it has been done before. Ouru and Raila campaigns believe that they can sway others with issues and that is why they are spending a lot of time in Kisii, Western province, Northestern and all these other areas which they consider swing votes and not locked into 100% tribal vote.

I, for one, have not stated, or suggested, or implied, that it is a cause-and-effect thing; what I have stated is that tribe is the most reliable indicator, and I have yet to see a convincing argument to prove me wrong.  Why that is so is something I cannot readily explain, but that it is how it is.   And I will now go beyond that: there is not the slightest indicator that 2017 will be any different.

Perhaps it will change in the future.   In order to explore that, perhaps you could tell us when red happened and why.

[Globalcitizen12]

Kichwa thanks for reminding us what this whole argument and rivalry is about. It is ideological. Since Pundit is reactionary he can only see the tribal aspect of the rivalry. Kiyuyus vs difference is still ideological. Kikuyus bought the idea that capitalism is the only solution while luos do belief that socialism serves the interests of Kenyans..

ODM idea of providing sanitary pads was mocked by GEMA supporters. I remember Kikuyus in RCB mocking raila on promising something as basic as sanitary pad. To them they saw this a nanny socialist idea. Odinga and ODM knew that this need existed and government was best placed to provide it.. Same thing with free secondary school and devolution.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I am glad you have watered it down to a "reliable indicator". I have no disagreement with that and it is a far cry from previous arguments where it has been taunted as the "only indicator".  Personally I think it is only reliable when combined with Kenyatta/jaramogi epic political differences which was strategically made into luo/kikuyu rivalry and which  other tribes learned to join and take sides with based on their political interest at any given time.

The Jaramogi/Kenyattaa rivalry has survived for a very long because it  was originally based on ideology and then tribalized and weaponized  to the extent that the ideological differences were completed covered reduced to  tribal differences for expediency and effectiveness. (the kikuyu oath taking was very strategic to achieve this goal.  Kenyattaa knew he would lose the ideological argument so he tribalized it) The reason why luos belief kikuyus are thieves and kikuyus believe luos lazy/complainers is right out of the capitalism/communism play book but now it is looked upon more of a tribal trait than an ideological argument.

 Kikuyus and luos are not neighbors, have no land issues, cattle issues, and other causes of tribal animosities and therefore have no reason to hate each other the way they do if not for the ideological differences between Jaramogi and Kenyattaa. This is therefore an ideological difference and not tribal although it appears so to a naked eye because that is what it was made to be for it to work to Kenyattaa's interest. Its the gift that keeps on giving to the Kenyattaa family and people like Ruto who have tapped into it.

I, for one, have not stated, or suggested, or implied, that it is a cause-and-effect thing; what I have stated is that tribe is the most reliable indicator, and I have yet to see a convincing argument to prove me wrong.  Why that is so is something I cannot readily explain, but that it is how it is.   And I will now go beyond that: there is not the slightest indicator that 2017 will be any different.

Perhaps it will change in the future.   In order to explore that, perhaps you could tell us when red happened and why.

It's not the only indicator.  But it's weight is such that for practical purposes the other indicators can be safely ignored.  I mean everything else, name it, pales in comparison.

I agree there is a historical explanation to it.  But when Mwangi, Cherop, Otieno, etc wakes up at 3 am August 8th, they couldn't care less.

[MOON Ki]

I am glad you have watered it down to a "reliable indicator". I have no disagreement with that and it is a far cry from previous arguments where it has been taunted as the "only indicator".

Actually, I haven't "watered down" anything.  Here is what I wrote: most reliable indicator.   Just to avoid any possible confusion: it is pretty much the only indicator I consider when I imagine the possible outcomes of the elections.

Personally I think it is only reliable when combined with Kenyatta/jaramogi epic political differences which was strategically made into luo/kikuyu rivalry and which  other tribes learned to join and take sides with based on their political interest at any given time.

Kenyatta certainly did a great deal that explain the role of tribe in today's Kenya.   But that role is now firmly entrenched, and both its existence and implications can be observed without reference to Kenyatta and Odinga.

This is therefore an ideological difference and not tribal although it appears so to a naked eye because that is what it was made to be for it to work to Kenyattaa's interest.

I don't follow the reasoning there.   

First: Yes, the Luo-Kikuyu "issues" started with the ideological conflict between Kenyatta and Odinga.   But even at the time Luos did side Odinga because of ideology, nor did Kikuyus side with Kenyatta because of ideology.    They simply acted like tribal sheep and went with the tribal leader.    (Or do you wish to argue that Luos, by virtue of genetic makeup or whatever, have an affinity for a particular sort of ideology ... and likewise for Kikuyus.?)

Second: I don't see how the original "ideological conflict" is a satisfactory explanation for the situation today, in a sense that would justify your claim that "an ideological difference and not tribal".   What in 2017 is the ideological difference that would lead one to say, with great confidence, to say that Luos will vote for Raila, and Kikuyus will vote for Kenyatta.

In fact, given your accounting, things are worse today.  Back then the tribal sheeple were following tribal lords who at least had some deep convictions about certain national issues and could articulate those convictions in a way that people related to in a hopeful way.   Today there is not even the slightest hint of "saving grace" in the follow-the-leader.

Third: Earlier you stated that

"IF you can convince Kenyans that their tribes mate will not serve their interest or that it is may even be against their interest if their tribes mate win, then I believe that Kenyans can vote against their tribes mate."

Yet you are now also stating that at the root of all this is stuff that happened 50 years ago.  Stuff that most people have either forgotten or just don't even know.   It doesn't give much hope in 2017.  This is going to be a bit simplistic, but consider these two different scenarios:

* 1970: Someone goes around talking to a bunches of Luos and Kikuyus, explaining that the conflict between the two "lords" are ideological and not tribal.  Let's all think of our interests, etc.   

* 2017: Someone goes around talking to a bunches of Luos and Kikuyus, explaining that the conflict between the two "lords" are ideological and not tribal.  Let's all think of our interests, etc.

(I leave them there without posing any questions.)

Still, in the idea of convincing people to vote according to their interests and regardless of tribe, you bring us to the core of the matter.    Actually, let us take it as two cores---a small one and a big one:

(a) The small one: what exactly has Raila put on the table that would, say, convince some average guy in Murang'a that he would be better off voting for Raila instead of Kenyatta.   (I don't ask the same of the latter because he has the power that the other is after.)

(b) The big one: You seem to believe in "issue-based" voting and have hopes for it.   Who in today's Kenya has any use for that?   Has Raila articulated a clear alternative vision for the country---the things he would do, why they are important, why he believes  those things would make a difference, how he would go about doing them, etc.?   Has Uhuru given his vision---what he would do differently, new things he would do, how he would do them, what positive difference we might see with him there for another 5 years? 

As far as I can tell, it is only now that people are beginning to think of "manifestos" ... looks like  they have run out of threats and insults.

[Kichwa]

Windy, that supports my theory. My theory is that its easy to predict the tribal votes when a Kenyatta and Jaramogi is running against each other however when as in 2002, the whole tribal mathematics becomes less predictable. In 2022 if the two Ruto's ran, you can end up with very strange bed fellows. My point is what we have been able to predict is a Kenyatta/Jaramogi tribal vote split but not really how Kenyans will vote in general. I can predict that African Ameicans will vote in 2020 but I dare you to predict how Luos will vote in 2022. This is analogous to the dude who mixed mixed coke with different brands of liquor, on different days, had a headache on each ocassion and concluded that coke causes headache because. He mistakenly treated coke as the only constant. In kenya we treat tribe as the only constant and ignore or downplay the glaring Kenyatta/Jaramogi tribalized political war still haunting us.

I am glad you have watered it down to a "reliable indicator". I have no disagreement with that and it is a far cry from previous arguments where it has been taunted as the "only indicator".  Personally I think it is only reliable when combined with Kenyatta/jaramogi epic political differences which was strategically made into luo/kikuyu rivalry and which  other tribes learned to join and take sides with based on their political interest at any given time.

The Jaramogi/Kenyattaa rivalry has survived for a very long because it  was originally based on ideology and then tribalized and weaponized  to the extent that the ideological differences were completed covered reduced to  tribal differences for expediency and effectiveness. (the kikuyu oath taking was very strategic to achieve this goal.  Kenyattaa knew he would lose the ideological argument so he tribalized it) The reason why luos belief kikuyus are thieves and kikuyus believe luos lazy/complainers is right out of the capitalism/communism play book but now it is looked upon more of a tribal trait than an ideological argument.

 Kikuyus and luos are not neighbors, have no land issues, cattle issues, and other causes of tribal animosities and therefore have no reason to hate each other the way they do if not for the ideological differences between Jaramogi and Kenyattaa. This is therefore an ideological difference and not tribal although it appears so to a naked eye because that is what it was made to be for it to work to Kenyattaa's interest. Its the gift that keeps on giving to the Kenyattaa family and people like Ruto who have tapped into it.

I, for one, have not stated, or suggested, or implied, that it is a cause-and-effect thing; what I have stated is that tribe is the most reliable indicator, and I have yet to see a convincing argument to prove me wrong.  Why that is so is something I cannot readily explain, but that it is how it is.   And I will now go beyond that: there is not the slightest indicator that 2017 will be any different.

Perhaps it will change in the future.   In order to explore that, perhaps you could tell us when red happened and why.

It's not the only indicator.  But it's weight is such that for practical purposes the other indicators can be safely ignored.  I mean everything else, name it, pales in comparison.

I agree there is a historical explanation to it.  But when Mwangi, Cherop, Otieno, etc wakes up at 3 am August 8th, they couldn't care less.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

MOON Ki,

I'll add that I have seen a few of the NASA rallies in Western.  They make generic criticisms of things like failed local industries and poor infrastructure that the jubilant has not delivered.  Maybe that is what Kichwa means by issues.

Yet in those same rallies, you will see them tell the crowd that demonic Messi and Weta will not be left out of government.  That those two will get very serious rewards so to speak.  They say this because they know that if either of these two go jubilant, their people will go with them, in-spite of everything in paragraph one.  Meaning that the issues can be dismissed at a moment's notice.

[MOON Ki]

MOON Ki,

I'll add that I have seen a few of the NASA rallies in Western.  They make generic criticisms of things like failed local industries and poor infrastructure that the jubilant has not delivered.  Maybe that is what Kichwa means by issues.

No doubt.   They are told that the government is full of incompetents and thieves.    Isn't that the standard-issue GoK for the last 50 years?   In which elections have Kenyans ever had problems with incompetents and thieves?   Just look at the results of the primaries!