do the tories have better "vote efficiency"?
no. not even close. they have no chance in most urban ridings, and the riding maps people are using seem to be stuck in the 50s - as ford's campaign, itself, is.
these are people that think the 905 is 'rural'; it hasn't been anything of the sort for decades. suburban, perhaps. but not rural. and, the cities in the region are actually growing very quickly. the liberals swept the 905 last time around for the exact reason that it's urban.
what the conservatives do have is an advantage in geography, as they do do better in rural areas, and that does give them more safe seats. but, if you take a look at that closely, inefficient is a better term to use than efficient. they're going to get 70% in some of these ridings, then get 12% in half of toronto. they need huge swings to win a mere handful of seats; whether they run at 25 or 35 is likely only a small difference in seats exchanged.
the liberals have the opposite problem - they're uncompetitive outside toronto - but they have what could be described as efficiency, and they're the party that this idea of vote efficiency should be applied towards. pulling them down 15% might seem catastrophic, but if it's all in ridings they'll never win anyways, it doesn't matter.
so, then, are the ndp inefficient? the reality is that they win a lot of close races. the disadvantage they've had is that they don't have a similar-sized base, so they need to rely on efficiency to win. i suspect this is in the process of changing.
the fact is that the exact same people made the exact same error in 2015, and it's probably rooted in a geography error rather than a mathematics one - if it isn't the internalization of campaign propaganda. go take a drive through the 905 and tell me it's "rural" in 2018.
people are living in london and working in toronto, nowadays.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
one of the polls released yesterday is more interesting than the others.
this is an actual poll:
https://innovativeresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/OntarioThisMonth_WhatDoThePhonesSay.pdf
...and what does it say?
undecideds are at 13%.
now, let's keep in mind that this is a low ball and that the margin of error puts the range for the pcs up to 31%. but, nobody is going to vote for doug ford at the last minute. so, some recent evidence is forcing me to concede a point i wasn't previously - the pcs may actually be finally starting to actually lose ground. or, to put it another way, they may be having difficulty merely holding the support from the last election, when they got 31%.
ford may be looking at leading the pcs to a decrease in popular support. well, he talks to people like they're fucking idiots...
that would indicate that essentially all of the movement that's happening right now is from the liberals to the ndp, and then you need to get worried, because most of the ridings in this province are battles between the liberals and the conservatives.
the liberals weren't going to win very many seats outside of toronto, anyways, so it doesn't matter what they're running at in most of the province. the key indicator is not the 905 but the 416.
and...
see, this is more believable than the mainstreet data, but you have to keep in mind that the margins of error start getting very high when you're dealing with small sample sizes (like 101). and, it's hard to know exactly what to make of this. the liberals are clearly down substantively, but it would seem as though the conservatives are as well. based on this poll, at least, it would seem as though the concern is less about the liberals splitting the vote with the ndp and more about the liberals splitting the vote with the conservatives: this would indicate that it's the conservatives that are losing the most ground in toronto, at the expense of the ndp (which is also picking up support from the liberals). i'm left to conclude that the liberals and ndp have a week to wage the battle of toronto - and that ford doesn't matter much.
if the liberals are going to hold toronto, they're going to need to rely on their ground game, which means they need good brand recognition.
liberals seem to prefer horwath over wynne, at this point - and the media has been beating the snot out of her for forever, so it's not surprising. but, they still call themselves liberals, when asked. and, those numbers should be skewed higher in toronto.
based solely on this poll - an actual poll, but one that doesn't fit the media narrative - i would not expect the tories to win any more seats than they already have, and for the liberals to hang on relatively well around toronto.
if the ndp & liberals split the undecided vote you end up with something like:
ndp: ~50 (35%)
tories: ~30 (27%)
liberals: ~30 (23%)
...and the ndp are going to be working on razor thin pluralities that could easily see the seat totals with the liberals flipped, even if the vote totals end as suggested. there will be more than 20 liberal-ndp fights that swing on a few points.
(just based on this one poll...)
this is an actual poll:
https://innovativeresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/OntarioThisMonth_WhatDoThePhonesSay.pdf
...and what does it say?
now, let's keep in mind that this is a low ball and that the margin of error puts the range for the pcs up to 31%. but, nobody is going to vote for doug ford at the last minute. so, some recent evidence is forcing me to concede a point i wasn't previously - the pcs may actually be finally starting to actually lose ground. or, to put it another way, they may be having difficulty merely holding the support from the last election, when they got 31%.
ford may be looking at leading the pcs to a decrease in popular support. well, he talks to people like they're fucking idiots...
that would indicate that essentially all of the movement that's happening right now is from the liberals to the ndp, and then you need to get worried, because most of the ridings in this province are battles between the liberals and the conservatives.
the liberals weren't going to win very many seats outside of toronto, anyways, so it doesn't matter what they're running at in most of the province. the key indicator is not the 905 but the 416.
and...
if the liberals are going to hold toronto, they're going to need to rely on their ground game, which means they need good brand recognition.
based solely on this poll - an actual poll, but one that doesn't fit the media narrative - i would not expect the tories to win any more seats than they already have, and for the liberals to hang on relatively well around toronto.
if the ndp & liberals split the undecided vote you end up with something like:
ndp: ~50 (35%)
tories: ~30 (27%)
liberals: ~30 (23%)
...and the ndp are going to be working on razor thin pluralities that could easily see the seat totals with the liberals flipped, even if the vote totals end as suggested. there will be more than 20 liberal-ndp fights that swing on a few points.
(just based on this one poll...)
you don't really think you know somebody all that well after you talk to them in a smoking section at a bar, do you?
i'm trying to project myself as who i feel i am. you might get a wrong first impression, and i can't fix that. but, i can reinforce that your first impression is wrong and that i'm sure i'm making the right choice.
i hope i'm at least projecting that i'm comfortable with myself, i'm at ease and i'm having a good time. you might want to think about whether or not that would be true if i was presenting myself differently, before you start drawing conclusions from faulty first impressions.
you might find my "male side" is actually a lot less friendly, very nervous and not a lot of fun at all, actually. at least, that's the lesson people in my past should have learned.
i'm trying to project myself as who i feel i am. you might get a wrong first impression, and i can't fix that. but, i can reinforce that your first impression is wrong and that i'm sure i'm making the right choice.
i hope i'm at least projecting that i'm comfortable with myself, i'm at ease and i'm having a good time. you might want to think about whether or not that would be true if i was presenting myself differently, before you start drawing conclusions from faulty first impressions.
you might find my "male side" is actually a lot less friendly, very nervous and not a lot of fun at all, actually. at least, that's the lesson people in my past should have learned.
i'm going to say this again.
i'm not ideologically opposed to tariffs. not rigidly, at least. although, if i was an american, i wouldn't want to put tariffs on europe - i would want to trade with europe. i would want to put tariffs on countries like china and mexico that have lower wage standards. this could in theory be used to protect american capital.
if america is putting steel tariffs on europe, it is neither to increase production in america nor to create jobs in the united states but to decrease labour benefits in europe. this is using tariffs for the reasons that free trade is usually used: as an attack on workers.
if you're an american capitalist, and you're not smart enough to be a fordist (which is the case for essentially all capitalists nowadays), your aim is always to reduce the amount paid to workers because this is seen as a reduction in profit. you would reduce workers to slaves, if you only could - because you're too short-sighted to care about the sustainability of the system and are blinded by immediate profit.
it would follow that you would want "free trade" with mexico because it would decline the labour standards in your own country, and you would also want tariffs with europe because it would decline the labour standards on that continent - which you're no doubt just as invested in.
today, capital is not multinational but transnational. it accepts no national boundaries. it has no allegiance to any value system, nor does it have any attachment to the workers in any specific country.
and, if you're a really savvy capitalist, and you've got a good stooge in office that the uneducated workers think is on their side, you can get away with this - by telling them that the tariffs are there to protect their jobs, when they're actually there to hurt the people they should be in solidarity with: workers across the ocean.
so, we have two problems with this. the first is that these tariffs will not help american workers, and are not intended to; they're designed to help european capital. this is the layer of governance where nato really exists: transnational capital flowing across the atlantic.
the other problem is that tariffs are hard. in this particular circumstance, you should expect european capital to attack it's workers rather than retaliate. people in europe are going to lose hard-fought for benefits. this is the collusion that is happening, and american shareholders will be the biggest winners in the end. but, in a different situation, where the tariffs are real, you need an economic general to co-ordinate the process, and trump is not the person - nor does he have these people around him.
the saddest part is that american steelworkers will support this, because they really are that ignorant, and because capital won the fundamental battle with nafta: it taught workers to see each other as competitors across national boundaries, rather than as comrades that need to stand in international solidarity with a common cause.
trump is not undoing nafta, he's spearheading the next attack in the class war.
i'm not ideologically opposed to tariffs. not rigidly, at least. although, if i was an american, i wouldn't want to put tariffs on europe - i would want to trade with europe. i would want to put tariffs on countries like china and mexico that have lower wage standards. this could in theory be used to protect american capital.
if america is putting steel tariffs on europe, it is neither to increase production in america nor to create jobs in the united states but to decrease labour benefits in europe. this is using tariffs for the reasons that free trade is usually used: as an attack on workers.
if you're an american capitalist, and you're not smart enough to be a fordist (which is the case for essentially all capitalists nowadays), your aim is always to reduce the amount paid to workers because this is seen as a reduction in profit. you would reduce workers to slaves, if you only could - because you're too short-sighted to care about the sustainability of the system and are blinded by immediate profit.
it would follow that you would want "free trade" with mexico because it would decline the labour standards in your own country, and you would also want tariffs with europe because it would decline the labour standards on that continent - which you're no doubt just as invested in.
today, capital is not multinational but transnational. it accepts no national boundaries. it has no allegiance to any value system, nor does it have any attachment to the workers in any specific country.
and, if you're a really savvy capitalist, and you've got a good stooge in office that the uneducated workers think is on their side, you can get away with this - by telling them that the tariffs are there to protect their jobs, when they're actually there to hurt the people they should be in solidarity with: workers across the ocean.
so, we have two problems with this. the first is that these tariffs will not help american workers, and are not intended to; they're designed to help european capital. this is the layer of governance where nato really exists: transnational capital flowing across the atlantic.
the other problem is that tariffs are hard. in this particular circumstance, you should expect european capital to attack it's workers rather than retaliate. people in europe are going to lose hard-fought for benefits. this is the collusion that is happening, and american shareholders will be the biggest winners in the end. but, in a different situation, where the tariffs are real, you need an economic general to co-ordinate the process, and trump is not the person - nor does he have these people around him.
the saddest part is that american steelworkers will support this, because they really are that ignorant, and because capital won the fundamental battle with nafta: it taught workers to see each other as competitors across national boundaries, rather than as comrades that need to stand in international solidarity with a common cause.
trump is not undoing nafta, he's spearheading the next attack in the class war.
they're claiming the tories are on the brink of a majority, and the liberals are likely to get less than ten seats, but that's a dramatic misrepresentation of the data.
to begin with, they're using this screwy online polling data, which is just damaging the model. garbage in, garbage out. then they're aggregating it without compensating for time, essentially ruining it altogether.
based on what he's come up with here, i think it's pretty clear that you can expect the liberals to hold on to at least 20 seats - maybe 30 - and that the only plausible outcome right now remains a tory minority.
again: if reliable data comes in pushing a reliable liberal collapse in the 416, that changes. but, i'm not currently convinced that the liberals have lost their base.
the floor is probably 20. that's probably the worst that the liberals will ever do. ever.
http://maps.lispop.ca/ontario_projections/
to begin with, they're using this screwy online polling data, which is just damaging the model. garbage in, garbage out. then they're aggregating it without compensating for time, essentially ruining it altogether.
based on what he's come up with here, i think it's pretty clear that you can expect the liberals to hold on to at least 20 seats - maybe 30 - and that the only plausible outcome right now remains a tory minority.
again: if reliable data comes in pushing a reliable liberal collapse in the 416, that changes. but, i'm not currently convinced that the liberals have lost their base.
the floor is probably 20. that's probably the worst that the liberals will ever do. ever.
http://maps.lispop.ca/ontario_projections/
i actually got out of that weekend feeling pretty healthy.
no blackouts. no substantive hangovers. not even that tired. well, not after that initial crash, anyways.
one of the key indicators is how my gastrocnemius feels. it is often the case that after several long days of dancing or walking, enough strain gets put on the back of my calves that they seize up a little - and i can get some sharp pains in there that i have to deal with by stretching. nothing this weekend...
maybe it's because the bicycle eliminated the walking. and, if i had walked it would have added an extra hour, at least, to each of the three nights. but i think i just paced myself well.
i crashed this morning, so i'm not going to get any apartment hunting done. i'm going to get something to eat and hit the reconstruction.
june will likely be a little bit quiet in terms of the party schedule. we'll see, though.
no blackouts. no substantive hangovers. not even that tired. well, not after that initial crash, anyways.
one of the key indicators is how my gastrocnemius feels. it is often the case that after several long days of dancing or walking, enough strain gets put on the back of my calves that they seize up a little - and i can get some sharp pains in there that i have to deal with by stretching. nothing this weekend...
maybe it's because the bicycle eliminated the walking. and, if i had walked it would have added an extra hour, at least, to each of the three nights. but i think i just paced myself well.
i crashed this morning, so i'm not going to get any apartment hunting done. i'm going to get something to eat and hit the reconstruction.
june will likely be a little bit quiet in terms of the party schedule. we'll see, though.
i don't know why my firefox started multiprocessing all of a sudden, but i've got it back off, now.
i purchased this laptop, refurbished, in mid-2009. it's a model from 2006. it runs, and technically with multiple cores, but it can't handle multiple instances of firefox that want to take multiple gb of ram at the same time. that's just going to make the machine unusable.
i will not be connecting expensive hardware to the internet in the future. i will be keeping all desktops completely offline. when this laptop machine eventually dies, i'll replace it with something cheap from a pawn shop and use it as a sacrificial offering of an access point.
the internet is simply not safe and there's nothing anybody can do about it except avoid taking nice things into it.
anyways. back to what i'm doing..
i purchased this laptop, refurbished, in mid-2009. it's a model from 2006. it runs, and technically with multiple cores, but it can't handle multiple instances of firefox that want to take multiple gb of ram at the same time. that's just going to make the machine unusable.
i will not be connecting expensive hardware to the internet in the future. i will be keeping all desktops completely offline. when this laptop machine eventually dies, i'll replace it with something cheap from a pawn shop and use it as a sacrificial offering of an access point.
the internet is simply not safe and there's nothing anybody can do about it except avoid taking nice things into it.
anyways. back to what i'm doing..
conservatives don't think before they vote. they don't care.
they vote c. always. no matter what. which means it doesn't actually
matter what they do in office, conservatives always hold their base.
and, liberals don't want to vote for conservatives.
so, when liberals run on the right, they get squeezed.
it doesn't matter if the conservative candidate is a beer-swilling idiot that wants to run deficits and may literally not be able to count to 100 (in french). conservatives will vote for this person, anyways. they don't care. they don't think. they just vote.
it looked like an angle, but it wasn't. it never was. it's a trap. and, wynne fell right into it.
and, liberals don't want to vote for conservatives.
so, when liberals run on the right, they get squeezed.
it doesn't matter if the conservative candidate is a beer-swilling idiot that wants to run deficits and may literally not be able to count to 100 (in french). conservatives will vote for this person, anyways. they don't care. they don't think. they just vote.
it looked like an angle, but it wasn't. it never was. it's a trap. and, wynne fell right into it.
i want to be clear: i thought wynne had a perfectly good chance going into this thing.
and, she could still hold the base in toronto.
and i still like her policies the best.
but, she's run the worst campaign i've ever seen. every day, almost, she's holding a press conference to push some stupid right-wing talking point. and, she's just unloading ammunition into her feet. every time you tell her she's shooting herself, she shoots harder. by the end, she's going to be like the black knight.
it's just a flesh wound.
they need to force her out, like, minutes after the election is done.
and, she could still hold the base in toronto.
and i still like her policies the best.
but, she's run the worst campaign i've ever seen. every day, almost, she's holding a press conference to push some stupid right-wing talking point. and, she's just unloading ammunition into her feet. every time you tell her she's shooting herself, she shoots harder. by the end, she's going to be like the black knight.
it's just a flesh wound.
they need to force her out, like, minutes after the election is done.
the russian narrative is probably bunk. they're probably upgrading their own collection worms.
but, what you want to do is keep your encryption algorithms up to date. it's hard to know what the state really has operating; terrabyte chips in parallel at data centres? it's just brute force. a quantum computer should be able to rip apart any existing encryption system, but if you get enough chips in parallel, you've got the same thing.
unless you're a mob boss yourself, you should be less concerned about the state decrypting your data, and more concerned about making life harder for people trying to steal your credit card #.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4237529/fbi-reboot-router-russian-malware/?utm_source=Other&utm_medium=MostPopular&utm_campaign=2014
but, what you want to do is keep your encryption algorithms up to date. it's hard to know what the state really has operating; terrabyte chips in parallel at data centres? it's just brute force. a quantum computer should be able to rip apart any existing encryption system, but if you get enough chips in parallel, you've got the same thing.
unless you're a mob boss yourself, you should be less concerned about the state decrypting your data, and more concerned about making life harder for people trying to steal your credit card #.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4237529/fbi-reboot-router-russian-malware/?utm_source=Other&utm_medium=MostPopular&utm_campaign=2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)