things hillary actually said

like the page to get a not-so-inspiring clinton quote once a day...

i'll be updating this once a day until november, or she drops out - whichever happens first.

https://www.facebook.com/thingshillarysaid/timeline

j reacts to the reports of sanders' death (being mildly exaggerated)

i'm sounding schizophrenic again, no doubt.

it doesn't change the math. it's rigged. i'm disengaging. zig-zagging, sure. but, is there a contradiction in there anywhere?

it doesn't change the delegate math. it does change the likelihood a little. i mean, if hillary gets arrested tomorrow, things change, right - i'll base whatever i continue to rant out on existing polls. but, projections of future successes need to be made on analyses of past ones. again: ohio was never serious. but, it's hard to see how he gets 60-65% in new york when he got 49% in illinois. yes: he always had to get 60-65% in new york, so what he needs to do hasn't changed. but, that's a big gap in votes over states that ought to vote similarly.

so, there's articles floating around claiming the lead is too big or the math has fundamentally altered - that it's too late, and that's it. that's inaccurate. the race has not meaningfully changed in any way. he still needs to do exactly what he already needed to do. it's just the question of whether it can be done or not that's become a little more in focus, and it's a little deflating.

but, despite my reactions, the truth is that his chances of winning are not different today than they were yesterday, and he still needs you to get out and vote in order for him to win. it's just that you have to do it. will you actually do it?

it's more that i've lost faith in you.

j reacts to hillary as liberal culture war general (as benedict arnold?)

hey, just a reminder: hillary clinton is not a pro-choice candidate.

she is on record, many times, over many years, as stating that she will put restrictions on access to abortion.

so, you might want to tone down the identity politics a little and take a closer look at what you're actually buying. you may be disappointed in what it actually is.

in fact, most of the reasons you might think you want to vote for her (out of fear) will not hold up to any real scrutiny on your behalf, if you bother to take the time to look into it.

she's not particularly keen on the gay, either, in fact.

nor does she particularly like black people. and i could rant for some time. but, hey. if you don't know this yet, what's the point....

if that's what this is being reduced to - identity politics, culture wars - i would really advise liberals to take a closer look at what they're supporting, whether actively or to stop the boogeyman. because she's actually not on your side of the culture wars. at all.

how about that support for capital punishment, too? geez, what a bleeding heart, huh?

trump wants to ban muslims from entering the country.

hillary wants to carpet bomb them in their own countries, then brag about there not being any military casualties.

you think hillary is less racist, somehow? amazing. you should get some kind of award for that.

she also supports mass deportations of illegal immigrants, btw.

you sure this is your horse in the culture war?

j reacts to the orwellian narrative developing in trump v clinton

so, it's becoming more clear what the narrative is setting itself up as.

trump is being set up as the villain. you need to vote away your rights to stop trump. the tpp might reduce you to a slave, but you'll vote for it because trump is scary. the security state is expanding, but you'll vote for it because trump said something mean about gay people.

they're ramping this up. and i just don't have time for it. but, if you were paying attention to what clinton did as secretary, this shouldn't be surprising. in fact, this kind of narrative is what you're going to get for the next eight years. it's all about distracting you with something scary to continue the slow enslavement of america. and, you'll be happy in your slavery, too.

the only way out is to not vote. i need to reiterate it. but, you have to see the situation for what it is, first.

trump is playing the role of the villain. clinton is here to save us. you need to make that deal with the devil, that hobbesian bargain, to sell yourself away for your own safety. it's all theatre. and you fall for it at your own peril.

--

in your rush to "stop fascism", you're going to elect a woman that all educated people realize is a fascist in waiting. veni, vidi, vici!. and, hey: you can count on her to get the trains to run on time. truly.

we're a little over thirty years late. but there it is. right out of orwell.

i'm voting for hillary clinton to stop fascism.

look at how absurd that statement is.

somebody meme this....

but, like i say: i'm tuning out. you might get the odd wry comment from me. the disinterested, sardonic observer. but, i have no attachment to this.

15-03-2016: super tuesday II reactions & analysis, while editing

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

j reacts to trump v clinton a second time, from a distinctly canadian perspective

i'm going to re-articulate myself mildly.

if i was an american, i would probably weigh things differently. i may not like clinton very much. i might be to her left on 19/20 issues - and consequently disagree with virtually everything she believes in. but, if i lived in a swing state, i'd probably drag myself out and force myself to vote for her.

probably.

i'd be voting against her opponent, not in favour of her.

what i've meant to say is that, as a canadian, whether trump or clinton wins is of little consequence to me. but, trump may be mildly preferable. let me restate my reasons.

1) trump may be less imperialist than clinton. we can state with certainty that clinton is an imperialist, neo-con interventionist. it is less clear where trump stands, but there is reason to think he may believe that it's all a waste of money.

2) trump may be better on trade. hillary is very obviously in support of the tpp [regardless of what she says]. trump may act to tear these agreements up.

maybe i should expand a little on this.

before nafta, there was something called the fta. it was just canada and the united states. then this was expanded to include mexico and that was nafta.

my position on free trade is very similar to that of the canadian liberal party. they supported the idea of free trade with the united states, but opposed the fta; it was the conservatives that put the deal through. i would also support the idea of free trade with mexico, but only under the condition that they pass more strenuous labour laws. see, that's the real problem. it's not that trade exists. it's that companies have a way out of adhering to labour laws - they just need to move to mexico. the currency thing is also a factor, but if the mexican state would catch up on regulations then most of the problems would resolve themselves very quickly. and, why aren't they? because the mexican state is horribly corrupt.

so, i would like to see nafta dissolved until mexico can get it's labour laws up to par. this is the same kind of process that the eu uses around it's member states. and, let the other central american states in, too, if they want.

i would argue, though, that dissolving nafta does not dissolve the fta - even if it needs a little work, too, to be actual free trade and not just investors rights.

so, that means i support free trade between the united states and canada, but oppose nafta [until mexico pulls itself up].

i would have similar views on the tpp - although i would support an open trade agreement between the united states, canada, australia, new zealand and japan. i'd support free trade with europe, and large amounts of south america. it's just a question of whether the labour laws are up to par or not.

clinton may claim she sort of agrees. we all know she doesn't. trump may have different logic, but he gets to the same point as i do. he is to her left on this issue.

3) health care. as a canadian, my prerogative is that you adopt a single-payer health care system. obamacare is of no benefit to the maintenance of my country's system - it is just the continuation of the status quo of a huge corrupt market on the border. i would like to see you abolish the market. the easiest way to do this is universal coverage over single-payer, but it's the abolition of the market that i'm concerned with.

hillary is not in favour of abolishing this market. trump is less clear. but, obamacare is a huge obstacle in abolishing the market, because people have come to accept it as a compromise. so, any step to abolish obamacare is within my best interests, as a canadian liberal that supports single payer and sees the american system as a perpetual threat to it.

4) the dollar. this is a bit sneaky. i think trump may crash the dollar. and, that benefits me in a lot of ways, as well.

so, again: i'm not endorsing trump. i'm not arguing you'd be better off under trump. i'm just pointing out that i need to disengage. as a canadian anti-war leftist, i simply don't think that taking a pro-clinton position is in my self-interest.

--

i should also remind some middle of the road political "moderates"  or perhaps people under thirty - that free trade is not a minor concern on the left. it was the central focus of the left throughout the 90s, culminating in major protests in seattle, quebec city and other places. the alter-globalization movement fizzled out after 9/11 under the effects of police state powers passed to "protect us from terrorists". but, the issue has never lost importance to leftists.

it's not just another thing in the list. it's the single, biggest issue - outside of putting an end to the wars created by 9/11.

this might be something bernie doesn't realize. he might want to do some polling; he may be shocked to find out that only a small percentage of his backers have any interest in getting tough on wall street at all.

frankly, the whole wall street spiel is actually pretty much my biggest disagreement with him. i would support reinstating glass-steagall. but, i think a lender of last resort is pretty important. and, i know that the so-called bailouts are actually loans.

but, i'll happily put that nonsense aside to talk about his broader prescriptions. and, the stance on trade is absolutely central. i may be giving away that it's so fundamentally important that i'd consider supporting the republicans over it - if i really believed they'd act to break it up.

this is actually fairly urgent...

the power went out this morning, and it seems to have fried the heater in the living room. this happened some time last summer, and it wasn't a big deal because it was summer. but it's still winter. so, that really can't be allowed to sit.

the last time it happened, you just changed out the electronics. but, i need to ask - is there something about the wiring that could be modified? i mean, that's twice that it knocked out in an electrical storm.

j reacts to her own reading of the polls, reflecting on the results

so, where'd i go wrong tonight?

i want to tie what i said about ohio back to the 538 article, because despite coming short on expectations, i think i beat them pretty solidly on the math.

they were claiming - based on demographics and polling - that ohio should be more like michigan, and illinois and missouri should be bigger clinton wins. it was in the form of "more black people, therefore more clinton" and "ohio is white, so it should be more like michigan".

i said - no way. check the voting history. which states are liberal? which are conservative?

and, i think the results solidly debunk all of those arguments. based on those kinds of arguments, the white working class state of ohio should have solidly backed sanders and missouri should have backed clinton by the ten points they claimed.

i made one error - i was off by about ten points all around. i called missouri and illinois for sanders by ten and ohio a functional draw - she won ohio by a little less than ten, and missouri and illinois were a draw.

so, i got the pattern right, at least - i'm just off by ten points. the aggregates and demographic modelling didn't even get the pattern right.

why was i off by ten points? turnout. either in terms of myself exaggerating turnout, in terms of turnout being less than it could have been or in terms of the stuffing counteracting it is not clear. but, it's reduced to an error in projected turnout nonetheless. and, that shifted the results in all three states by about ten points.

--

i want to be clear on that point, as it's not trivial, right.

i looked at the polling and said "ok. but they're underpolling independents. so, i'm going to shift the results."

i did that in michigan, and it got me closer - but it wasn't enough of a shift. tonight, this kind of thinking continued to beat the models, but it was too much of a shift - about 10%. consistently.

j reacts to what the supertuesday II results tell us about the fairness of the results (#2)

so, is the primary fair? how's the cognitive dissonance doing?

well, the night started off pretty poorly - with these huge head starts. "initial state", or whatever it was. i guess that these are absentee ballots, or early voting or whatever. and, we can see that these votes were disproportionately in favour of clinton, and that these leads came down dramatically over the night.

it's all very easy to explain and everything. older voters, and whatnot. but, we have to keep coming back to this thought experiment: if she was going to rig it...

it is what it is, right? you want to play the game, you have to play by the rules. a little irony, but it's life. he knew what he was getting into.

michigan proved that it is possible to overrun the ballot-box stuffing and win with brute force of high turnout, but it's hard to maintain and she can of course adjust.

florida was a little wider than the late polls suggested - albeit not a lot. she supposedly got 75% of the vote in miami-dade. that's a 90,000 vote win. and, so, what's the difference - a delegate?

chicago might seem more important. she probably won by stuffing boxes in chicago (with black people's names - see how this works? it's the democrats, folks. what did you expect?). but, it works out to a few delegates, at the end of it.

the question here was whether it was rigged, and again i think they tried to but they're only stuffing it enough to try and get across a media message - she wins. veni, vidi, vici. well, this is the right mindset with this woman, right.

so, she got enough ballots in illinois and missouri to swing the checkmark. and, she overcompensated in ohio.

but, the cheating is not really altering the race. or, not yet.

the antidote is higher turnout. you can only stuff so many ballot boxes. and, you can overpower any and every attempt to cheat with brute force - if you can get enough people out.

so, is it rigged? sort of. but, don't complain about it. run the limes, instead.

j reacts to the question of whether ohio was ever seriously in play

so, the ohio vote stabilized around 56.5.

this is higher than north carolina. do you believe that?

i kind of don't, and i went through this. but, i think it is important to temper it a little, too.

again: the argument was that ohio is just like michigan. what?

ohio voted for bush. it's electoral history looks more like virginia's than michigan's. so, it shouldn't be surprising.

the truth is that you were being misled by silly models. you should have never really expected him to win ohio. really. ever.

you should have expected him to win illinois, though.