https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfGU586YyVY
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/10.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
10-05-2016: boreal sons, west virginia & an unexpected early crash
concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfGU586YyVY
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/10.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfGU586YyVY
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/10.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
this media narrative is going to fall flat. the vast majority of sanders supporters don't see any material difference between clinton and trump, anyways - and may even lean a little closer to trump on foreign policy and trade. the really interesting question is whether jill stein can get these supporters, not if clinton can. but, the warped truth is that she'll probably win anyways, because republican support for trump is even lower.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
Mollybloom
As if -- Canadian comments on U.S. politics matter a damn to anyone south-of-us. Nevertheless, this collective purgative does have momentary solace as we stop crapping in our own backyard.
But for gawd's sake Bernie, remember Ralph and ponder whether you guys would have got anywhere near Iraq with Gore.
jessica amber murray
i am absolutely certain that gore would have bombed iraq. in fact, he'd probably have also avoided the protests.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
As if -- Canadian comments on U.S. politics matter a damn to anyone south-of-us. Nevertheless, this collective purgative does have momentary solace as we stop crapping in our own backyard.
But for gawd's sake Bernie, remember Ralph and ponder whether you guys would have got anywhere near Iraq with Gore.
jessica amber murray
i am absolutely certain that gore would have bombed iraq. in fact, he'd probably have also avoided the protests.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
shit hillary said vol 56
"I wouldn’t raise it [the capital gains investment tax] above 20% if I raised it at all."
j reacts to whether kentucky is similar to west virginia...or not.
so, how similar is kentucky to west virginia?
well, in fact, a substantial amount of the population of kentucky is a part of a border city. cincinatti and lousville together make up 35% of the population. i think that the following map is a pretty strong argument that clinton ought to be favoured in these cities - and that if she loses those cities, we can talk about shifts in voting intentions.
that would really be a smoking gun, i think. i mean, half of louisville already voted - for clinton. and, half of cincinatti did, too. we actually have the privilege of a nearly apples-to-apples comparison, there. if she wins the ohio side of cinci in march, and loses the kentucky side in may? that strongly suggests that her support is, in fact, caving. but, indiana was last week. how can you expect different results?
lexington houses another 20% of the population and it is truly barely outside the city limits of both lousville and cincinatti, so why would anybody expect significantly different results? so, you're now around 50% of the population in these three geographically proximate cities.
i still haven't seen any polling in kentucky. but, i think this graphic of indiana glued to ohio makes it clear as day that if she doesn't carry this tri-city area then she's definitely bleeding support. even some mixed results are going to point in that direction.
there may be remnant excuses in the rest of the state, although note that i've also attached a combination of tennessee and virginia, and think it pretty clearly implies she should win the southern parts of kentucky as well. i mean, what changes on the border, there? there's not even a river or anything. it's about as arbitrary as the sykes-picot line. how's she going to sweep tennessee like that and then lose kentucky? that wouldn't be as much of a smoking gun, but it would be a pretty strong argument that she's losing support in her base.
it may be that some of the counties in the very east of the state are lost in the same kind of non-reality that exists in west virginia, but i think i've convinced myself that we can make some real conclusions from kentucky - regardless of what clinton has said or how important it is.
losing louisville - at least - is going to suggest the campaign should go into crisis mode.
it's also going to suggest that sanders' argument is strengthening, not weakening.
but, again - i don't see any good reason at all to think the map of kentucky won't look like the map of tennessee.
well, in fact, a substantial amount of the population of kentucky is a part of a border city. cincinatti and lousville together make up 35% of the population. i think that the following map is a pretty strong argument that clinton ought to be favoured in these cities - and that if she loses those cities, we can talk about shifts in voting intentions.
that would really be a smoking gun, i think. i mean, half of louisville already voted - for clinton. and, half of cincinatti did, too. we actually have the privilege of a nearly apples-to-apples comparison, there. if she wins the ohio side of cinci in march, and loses the kentucky side in may? that strongly suggests that her support is, in fact, caving. but, indiana was last week. how can you expect different results?
lexington houses another 20% of the population and it is truly barely outside the city limits of both lousville and cincinatti, so why would anybody expect significantly different results? so, you're now around 50% of the population in these three geographically proximate cities.
i still haven't seen any polling in kentucky. but, i think this graphic of indiana glued to ohio makes it clear as day that if she doesn't carry this tri-city area then she's definitely bleeding support. even some mixed results are going to point in that direction.
there may be remnant excuses in the rest of the state, although note that i've also attached a combination of tennessee and virginia, and think it pretty clearly implies she should win the southern parts of kentucky as well. i mean, what changes on the border, there? there's not even a river or anything. it's about as arbitrary as the sykes-picot line. how's she going to sweep tennessee like that and then lose kentucky? that wouldn't be as much of a smoking gun, but it would be a pretty strong argument that she's losing support in her base.
it may be that some of the counties in the very east of the state are lost in the same kind of non-reality that exists in west virginia, but i think i've convinced myself that we can make some real conclusions from kentucky - regardless of what clinton has said or how important it is.
losing louisville - at least - is going to suggest the campaign should go into crisis mode.
it's also going to suggest that sanders' argument is strengthening, not weakening.
but, again - i don't see any good reason at all to think the map of kentucky won't look like the map of tennessee.
j reacts to west virginia (it's opposites-land)
so, can we conclude that sanders would win in the south if there was a rematch tomorrow?
the exit polls are throwing a few wrenches into it.
1) the democrats have higher turnout than the republicans. that's hard to make sense of in west virginia, which is an open primary. so, voter registration is entirely irrelevant, because you can vote for either party (or both parties) regardless of how you're registered. would west virginia be in play in the general? well, hardly.
now, it is true that trump told people to stay home. so, you can at least understand the decrease in republican turnout that way. but, then, you can't argue that sanders is winning crossover trump votes - he must be winning voters that are not at all interested in the republicans.
2) yet, the exit polls are also suggesting that the voters self-identify as right-of-centre. that is inconsistent with the low republican turnout. it's just a contradiction, flat out.
3) sanders is apparently doing well with coal miners, which is another contradiction - as his climate policies are far tougher than hers are. i mean, i saw this narrative, but i rejected it as propaganda. the reality is that sanders will actually eliminate coal jobs (although he'll compensate them for it); who would actually believe that clinton is going to do anything other than flop on that, for the right price? i mean, i know what she said. but, who would possibly believe her? i suppose you could argue that it's just not thought through well. but, then, why is turnout for trump so low? if you're voting in favour of coal jobs, you'd have to be remarkably clueless to vote solely for sanders. even if you laughably believe what hillary said, you'd think you'd vote for trump as well as for sanders.
i do think that this is quite ominous for clinton, as the demographics in west virginia should overwhelmingly favour her. but, i can't rule out the possibility that what you're seeing is an ignorant reaction to a bald-faced lie, rather than a general shift in voting intentions amongst southern conservatives.
but, the evidence is mounting that there has been a big shift in southern support. let's see how she does in kentucky, first.
---
yeah.
see, this is what sanders said:
“While I strongly believe we need to combat climate change to make our planet habitable for our children and our grandchildren, let me be clear: We cannot abandon communities that have been dependent on coal and other fossil fuels,” he said, according to prepared remarks of his speech. “In my view, we have got to invest $41 billion rebuilding coal mining communities and making sure that Americans in McDowell County and all over this country receive the job training they need for the clean energy jobs of the future.”
when somebody puts aside $40 billion dollars for retraining in coal communities, you can be pretty sure they're going to shut down the industry more or less for good. so, this idea that they were voting for sanders as a reaction to clinton's coal comments is something that you ought to discard. it doesn't actually make any sense.
so, i mean, it's not like i didn't realize that the comments were likely to upset people. it's just that i couldn't imagine anybody voting for sanders as a response. the rational thing to do is vote for trump.
but, voters don't have perfect information. in fact, in places like west virginia, they tend to have very low information. i think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that they didn't do their research, and just foolishly kneejerked. that is, they heard something on the news (or talk radio) that they didn't like and they voted against that.
but, here's another strange statistic: apparently upwards of 40% of voters in the democratic primary are planning to vote for trump.
remember: this is also a state where you get significant numbers of write-ins.
i think the broader take-away from west virginia is that it's gone down the rabbit hole. what you really see in the numbers is a level of cynicism that exists only in the realm of the surreal. and, so, trying to predict results, or analyze results, is sort of pointless - you're assuming an inherent rationality that isn't actually there.
i think it's clear that my analysis was accurate: voters in the democratic primary were overwhelmingly conservative and broadly fit the same demographic patterns that voted heavily for clinton in surrounding states. they just refused to behave rationally.
i've pointed out a few times that i'm not an american; while i certainly know more about american geography than most americans know about canadian geography, i do have limits in my understanding. so, this is the question that i need a real answer to: just how similar is kentucky to west virginia? are we going to get these same kind of surreal results, that defy any kind of real logic? or is it going to align more with states like tennessee?
it's a big question, because it really defines whether sanders is still competitive. is he winning due to cynicism or enthusiasm? and, can it be projected to states that voted weeks or months ago or not?
the exit polls are throwing a few wrenches into it.
1) the democrats have higher turnout than the republicans. that's hard to make sense of in west virginia, which is an open primary. so, voter registration is entirely irrelevant, because you can vote for either party (or both parties) regardless of how you're registered. would west virginia be in play in the general? well, hardly.
now, it is true that trump told people to stay home. so, you can at least understand the decrease in republican turnout that way. but, then, you can't argue that sanders is winning crossover trump votes - he must be winning voters that are not at all interested in the republicans.
2) yet, the exit polls are also suggesting that the voters self-identify as right-of-centre. that is inconsistent with the low republican turnout. it's just a contradiction, flat out.
3) sanders is apparently doing well with coal miners, which is another contradiction - as his climate policies are far tougher than hers are. i mean, i saw this narrative, but i rejected it as propaganda. the reality is that sanders will actually eliminate coal jobs (although he'll compensate them for it); who would actually believe that clinton is going to do anything other than flop on that, for the right price? i mean, i know what she said. but, who would possibly believe her? i suppose you could argue that it's just not thought through well. but, then, why is turnout for trump so low? if you're voting in favour of coal jobs, you'd have to be remarkably clueless to vote solely for sanders. even if you laughably believe what hillary said, you'd think you'd vote for trump as well as for sanders.
i do think that this is quite ominous for clinton, as the demographics in west virginia should overwhelmingly favour her. but, i can't rule out the possibility that what you're seeing is an ignorant reaction to a bald-faced lie, rather than a general shift in voting intentions amongst southern conservatives.
but, the evidence is mounting that there has been a big shift in southern support. let's see how she does in kentucky, first.
---
yeah.
see, this is what sanders said:
“While I strongly believe we need to combat climate change to make our planet habitable for our children and our grandchildren, let me be clear: We cannot abandon communities that have been dependent on coal and other fossil fuels,” he said, according to prepared remarks of his speech. “In my view, we have got to invest $41 billion rebuilding coal mining communities and making sure that Americans in McDowell County and all over this country receive the job training they need for the clean energy jobs of the future.”
when somebody puts aside $40 billion dollars for retraining in coal communities, you can be pretty sure they're going to shut down the industry more or less for good. so, this idea that they were voting for sanders as a reaction to clinton's coal comments is something that you ought to discard. it doesn't actually make any sense.
so, i mean, it's not like i didn't realize that the comments were likely to upset people. it's just that i couldn't imagine anybody voting for sanders as a response. the rational thing to do is vote for trump.
but, voters don't have perfect information. in fact, in places like west virginia, they tend to have very low information. i think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that they didn't do their research, and just foolishly kneejerked. that is, they heard something on the news (or talk radio) that they didn't like and they voted against that.
but, here's another strange statistic: apparently upwards of 40% of voters in the democratic primary are planning to vote for trump.
remember: this is also a state where you get significant numbers of write-ins.
i think the broader take-away from west virginia is that it's gone down the rabbit hole. what you really see in the numbers is a level of cynicism that exists only in the realm of the surreal. and, so, trying to predict results, or analyze results, is sort of pointless - you're assuming an inherent rationality that isn't actually there.
i think it's clear that my analysis was accurate: voters in the democratic primary were overwhelmingly conservative and broadly fit the same demographic patterns that voted heavily for clinton in surrounding states. they just refused to behave rationally.
i've pointed out a few times that i'm not an american; while i certainly know more about american geography than most americans know about canadian geography, i do have limits in my understanding. so, this is the question that i need a real answer to: just how similar is kentucky to west virginia? are we going to get these same kind of surreal results, that defy any kind of real logic? or is it going to align more with states like tennessee?
it's a big question, because it really defines whether sanders is still competitive. is he winning due to cynicism or enthusiasm? and, can it be projected to states that voted weeks or months ago or not?
i actually don't have much bad to say about this. it's facile, and kind of stupid, but you can say the same thing about any other political slogan, right? and, the reality is that shit doesn't happen unless it comes from the bottom up. i mean, you don't expect people to go out and start chanting mill or something, do you? that's not a gendered comment, it's a human comment. if there's something j-lo is good at, it's getting people to pay attention to her. so, this is really an absolutely respectable attempt to get some people pushing for something that is really long overdue.
i'm just not sure she's backing the right candidate.
hey, listen: it's not like i don't think hillary's on your side, intellectually. i just don't think you're going to get what you're hoping for.
i'm just not sure she's backing the right candidate.
hey, listen: it's not like i don't think hillary's on your side, intellectually. i just don't think you're going to get what you're hoping for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)