j reacts to whether the results really change the math of the race or not

so, i'm going to spin this a little bit. remember: it's about delegates.

i thought he would win missouri and illinois by comfortable margins, lose by equivalent margins in florida and north carolina and split ohio. that's a little different than other people were suggesting. but, had it worked out that way, it basically cancels out and lets him move forward.

the results?

well, he performed about how was expected in florida.

but he did a little better in north carolina than expected, which is good. that said, he did a little worse in ohio than expected. in terms of delegates? that actually cancels out.

the disappointment, then, is that he did not do better in missouri amd illinois. he may end up "winning" both, but he's really splitting both, regardless of who technically wins. he needed to use these states to try and gain delegates, not to break even.

so, where he's going to lose delegates tonight is in underperforming in missouri and illinois - and that likely reduces to turnout.

spring break? maybe.

it makes it a little harder, sure. but it doesn't really change the race. no, really. if you look at it closely, it doesn't. he still needs to get about 60% over the next 9 states up to new york - and he should be able to do that. then, he still needs to win 50+ delegates in new york. from there, the math isn't really substantially different - he'd still have to win the next couple of dates, and he'd still have to win big in california.

so, it would have been a moral victory if he had won thirty or forty more delegates, sure. but it doesn't change the math....

--

no. really.

mo:
71*.6  = 43.
71*.5 = 36

ill:
156*.6 = 94
156*.5 = 78

(43-36) + (94-78) =
7 + 16 =
23.

not a big difference. he can make that up by overperforming in pennsylvania.

j reacts to what the supertuesday II results tell us about the fairness of the results (# 1)

they called ohio too early.

i mentioned this in massachusetts: it looks like she stuffed ballots in boston. and he almost overwhelmed it.

i mentioned it in michigan: it looks like she stuffed ballots in detroit. and he did overwhelm it.

that's where she could stuff ballots. and, the urban/rural split is backwards. i mean, did we enter the twilight zone? then, there's something funny going on.

so, she looks at the "expert analysis" for today. and, they say that she could lose ohio. so, she stuffs ohio extra good - to make sure he couldn't possibly overwhelm her.

so, she starts off with a huge lead. 70%. "initial results". then, they call it within a few minutes, right. all according to plan...

now, i didn't think ohio was the state she had to worry about. i thought it was illinois. and, there's a lot of illinois that hasn't come in, yet.

but, whether i was right or wrong, something is curious: he is consistently gaining in ohio. she's fallen, steadily, from 70% to 57%. and, this movement is continuing.

wait for it.

can he overwhelm it, after all?

j reacts to the error of dropping rubio if the establishment aim is truly to stop trump

dropping rubio remains an error.

let's look at these numbers, excluding florida.

ill:
trump: 42
kasich: 26
cruz: 22
rubio: 9

mo:
trump: 49
cruz: 32
rubio: 9
kasich: 5

nc:
trump: 40
cruz: 34
kasich: 13
rubio: 10

you can see, clearly, that dropping rubio doesn't give anybody enough support to catch trump, anywhere, in the winner-takes-all states. it will, however, give trump a roughly 5 point boost - which helps him in the remaining proportional states.

if the republican party has given up and is embracing trump? well, sure.

if this is meant to help cruz or kasich? fail.

rubio dropping only helps one person: trump.

don't take this too seriously. they're very round numbers. but, it gives you an idea of what could happen tonight.

clinton:
214*.6 + 156*.4 + 71*.4 + 107*.6 + 143*.5 = 355

sanders:
214*.4 + 156*.6 + 71*.6 + 107*.4 + 143*.5 = 336

if he can keep it a little closer in florida, and get a bit of distance elsewhere, it gets closer.

but, that's basically split. and, then the calendar turns dramatically in his favour - he could sweep from now until new york.

then, he must make up delegates in new york. around 50 or so. and, things will seem very different than they do now once we get there.

but.

it was always about california.

j reacts to racial profiling as a predictor variable [correlation dni causality]

i just want to draw attention to this because it's exactly the kind of analysis that i think is completely wrong, and exactly what i'm flailing against.

they are claiming that proportion of black voters is predictive; that it's causal. i claim it's not, that it's a proxy for ideology. and, they're running through all of these other irrelevant things that are purely correlative, and at best proxies (but largely, not even). this is the basic error of correlation not implying causality. it doesn't. it never has. no matter how convenient pollsters think it is, it's still wrong. no matter how ubiquitous..

i am calling illinois for bernie because it is a blue, liberal state. i think he will win illinois big, and there is some polling that upholds this. missouri and ohio are purple states and should actually split - although i think bernie will win missouri and ohio is less clear (based on polling). so, ohio is the least likely because it is the most purple. and, frankly, the polling for florida (a blue-to-purple state) isn't making sense to me - but i don't have any valid argument to suggest he has a real chance, other than to question the modelling in the polling (and all that can do, at best, is take the margin down - but i said the same thing about michigan). i have claimed florida will be closer than expected.

we saw the black thing break down a little in michigan, but michigan is purple. illinois will collapse the whole thing altogether and make it clear that race is not the predictive variable, but merely a coincidental one.

but, it won't stop the media. this is what the media does. this is what the country is!

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-bernie-sanders-pull-off-an-upset-in-ohio/

j reacts to possible misperceptions about endorsements in previous cycles

i just woke up from a dream that featured a lengthy political debate with my subconscious, and i want to be clear about where i stood in 2008.

i supported clinton over obama in 2008. the reason was that i - correctly - calculated that clinton was to the left of obama on a couple of things, and interchangeable on the rest.

but, there was one major issue that led me to support clinton over obama, and it was healthcare. obama made it very clear that he opposed single payer (even if he flopped on a public option). at the time, hillary was suggesting that she supported single payer. with all the concern about hilllary's trustworthiness aside, obama was blatantly presenting himself as a market fundamentalist, and hillary just seemed like the better choice to abolish a market-based healthcare system (which is in the self-interest of canada).

that was the single, dominant issue - i thought she would be better on healthcare. and, despite all the flipflopping on hillary's side, obama's health care plan is exactly what i didn't support - meaning she could have only been better, on the issue.

but, i want to be clear that this was also a lesser-evil calculation. i never whole-assedly supported clinton the way i'm supporting sanders. it was always "well, they're both horrible, but she's a little better." - the typical left-liberal approach to democratic party politics.

but, i've identified some other issues in the current election that matter to me, as a canadian. what did i think in 2008?

1) foreign policy is big. it's a huge reason i'm pushing for sanders. in 2008? i decided they were both neo-con interventionists and that they would not differ in any substantial way on foreign policy. i did not fall for the hype on obama; i understood that he was not opposed to the invasion of iraq on principle (like sanders was) but simply because he thought it was a poor tactical decision. i heard him loud and clear when he stated, repeatedly, that he'd have rather blown afghanistan into a crater, if he had the chance. so, i saw them both as imperialist, interventionist, pro-war candidates. i did not see any reason to support obama on this file. and, he went and made her secretary of state, so i hardly think i analyzed this poorly.

2) trade. i saw them as interchangeable on trade, as well. and, what obama has left us with is the tpp - which is exactly what clinton would have left us with.

and, i could run through this list, and you'll see that commonality - what i saw was a two-headed monster with a slightly different health care policy.

that's very different than what i'm seeing today. sanders is a real choice for some change, even if it's not as extreme as some would like to exaggerate it. obama never was - and, if you were fully informed, you knew that the whole time.

14-03-2016: skipping out on "faust" to stay home and edit, archive and rant

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

my read on this is that they're reading a lot of uncertainty into the american election and pulling back to wait to see what happens - while getting out of the way, so to speak. it's a characteristically shrewd move, designed to minimize conflict.