05/06-04-2016: wisconsin analysis & scary neurological moment

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

this is how government works. i knew i was voting for bay street; unfortunately, the socialist party was shilling for big oil and pushing for "balanced budgets".

i don't share the view that these events are nefarious by default. they might be. they might not be. i think, with this firm, the most concerning thing is that they represent a lot of wealthy tax cheats. allegedly. sorry.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justice-minister-private-fundraiser-1.3521731

the president doesn't *actually* make these decisions, though.

look at the list of presidents over the last 50 years.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alex-salmond-donald-trump-1.3522337

j reacts to the wisconsin results (and analyses moving forwards) (pt 4)

yeah. the media never updated the washington numbers. sneaky.

by my count, the current breakdown of pledged delegates is:

clinton : 1303
sanders: 1087

there's some error involved. but that means the difference is around 216. if he can get at least six in wyoming, that's under 210 going into new york. which is close enough to be on target.

but i need to reiterate: the path i've presented indicates he needs to win at least +50 in new york.  that means he's looking at 60% as a minimum target. although the sky won't fall if it's 57, either. it just means he needs to win even bigger in california. you get why this doesn't end before june 7, i gather?

but, he needs to win, and by more than 55%. he needs to be aiming for 60%. i went down this path for the following reasons:

(1) it's about the only way he's going to get the bump he needs to win the rest of the calendar by the margins he needs. he had to win in massachusetts and didn't. he had to win illinois big and didn't. he had to split in arizona and didn't. and etc. so, now he has to win in new york - and convincingly.
(2) it's really not impossible.

i've pointed out repeatedly that i reject racial-based demographic modeling as racist. and, i don't think clinton has any kind of a meaningful home state advantage in new york, either. she only picked new york because it was a safe seat. nobody voted for hillary clinton. they voted for the democrats. they could have a run a bouquet of flowers and it would have won. and, what did she do? she voted for an unpopular war and went after video games. her home state is arkansas, not new york.

conversely, new york is actually a pretty liberal place. it's somewhere that should really embrace what sanders stands for.

with a caveat. and that is money. the new york primary is going to be about class and turnout. clinton will do very well with wealthy democrats. and the deadline to register was last week. was he able to register enough voters to overwhelm the old guard?

if he can, we keep going. if he can't, it's time to start organizing the anti-war marches and labour activists against clinton.

fwiw? i don't see any reason to be particularly convinced that he can.

shit hillary said vol 21

j reacts to the wisconsin results (and analyses moving forwards) (pt 3)

it's hard to predict an unfair election, man. cut me some slack. you've gotta try and guess where they're going to cheat, and by how much. wisconsin seems to mostly be clean, but how do you guess that. and, if you just go by the numbers, you get called out when they cheat. i've at least been clear about this the whole time.

but by not cheating in wisconsin, they've given me a prop to use. the new york times has a great little graph in it's coverage called "how the vote came in". graphs are great for people that don't think in math. so, let's take a look at them.

please check the following states:

- ohio (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/ohio)
- missouri (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/missouri)
- illinois (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/illinois)

you will see something curious in these states: she starts off with huge leads and then watches it drop over the night - by 20% in ohio & missouri.

that's a very, very suspicious signal. in fact, it's the classic signal for stuffing ballots.

now, let's look at wisconsin (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin). there is some fluctuation, but only mildly. a few percentage points. this is more reflective of what you expect to see in a fair election.

i would argue that these graphs are enough, on their own, to demonstrate that the election is unfair. and, once you establish as much, trying to figure out what's going to happen gets super complicated....

the tactic we've seen is that she tends to rig the big cities. so, i would have expected her to "win" by about 50,000 votes in milwaukee. then, you expect them to "run out of ballots" and other such things in the counties, which works as voter suppression.

but, that just didn't happen in wisconsin. again: could it be the polling? i don't know. but, it might have been. so, keep doing it!

j reacts to the wisconsin results (and analyses moving forwards) (pt 2)

and, cruz' win in wisconsin is meaningless. he still has no chance in the northeast, and no serious path. i would not call on him to drop out, though, because more of his support will move to trump than to kasich.

it is only kasich that has any chance of beating trump in the northeast. but, he needs cruz to split the right for him to do it.