https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
j reacts to the mar 21 cnn townhall
see, this is a good example of why trump is just.....
the idea of spending less money on war is something that's going to swing more than a few democrats, on it's own. this is realigning, even, when you line it up with his views on trade. i don't like the guy, but i'm having a hard time finding reasons why i should like him less than i like hillary.
but, he continually demonstrates that he's absolutely clueless about what's going on. there's only two ways you can parse his response on ukraine:
(1) he's just totally clueless and in desperate need of a major briefing.
(2) he's some kind of russian spy.
i'm not exaggerating. and while there's actually a few pieces of circumstantial evidence leaning towards (2), russian spies don't get prime time tv slots. they end up like alex jones. it's far more likely that he just hasn't the faintest clue.
yet, as clueless as he may be, that doesn't change the fact that this is so remarkably refreshing.
i've compared him to inspector gadget more than once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVbV-FbnQwo
i'm about as far to the left as you get. if you're going to run an election with one candidate that wants to ramp down nato and pull out of nafta, and another that's a liberal interventionist that was involved in writing the tpp, i wouldn't be much of a leftist if i picked the latter, would i?
i want to be clear: i'm advocating non-voting. neither one is acceptable. but, xenophobic trash aside, trump may honestly be the more left-wing candidate.
--
see, and then anderson cooper runs an essentially issueless interview - except the xenophobia thing. with clinton/cooper, specifically, you know the interview was scripted. so, the attempt is to zero in on a specific issue.
i don't think that's going to work. to begin with, i don't think hillary has nearly the stret cred that she thinks she does on minority rights. but, more importantly, it's just not what people are going to want the election to be about it.
i've been over this already. cue the scary music. build up the drama. easy, right?
here's a case study: the 2006 canadian election tried this tactic and failed badly. the then-ruling liberals, under paul martin, tried to paint stephen harper as an extreme right-wing nutcase that was going to bring in a police state and gut universal healthcare. the actual reality is that they were right, except it would have taken him 30 years to do it because he was a very methodical incrementalist. we got rid of him after nine years - and he had absolutely made baby steps on a number of issues.
but, the tactic backfired because people just didn't believe it. while trump is far more obnoxious than harper, he's also considerably to his left - and far less of an actual threat. you'd have to expect the same kind of reaction. especially in a country where those knocks on the door are already commonplace, under a democratic president.
so, is she going to take him on on all these issues and have to come out to his right over and over again? it's not a clean flip, of course. i'm sure hillary's tax plan will make a little more sense. and, hate it for being regressive all you want, but obamacare is going to win her some votes. so, you're not just looking at a possible realignment, but a possible reconfiguration. you'll get this blue collar republican trump voter that is working class, isolationist, xenophobic and in favour of big government expenditures, along with this moderate conservative vote that backs hillary on security and the constitutional rule of law. you want to run hillary and kasich on one ticket and trump and sanders on the other. and, who knows where everything lands in a couple of years...
--
sanders answered the questions excellently, but i don't see how....what i'm trying to get across is that the questions were framed to prevent him from getting any kind of a bounce. he tried to get some talking points in, but we didn't get that stark contrast that we got in the michigan debates. the choir will nod, but nobody is getting swayed.
sanders needs another debate. and another one. and maybe a third one, too.
jenny graves
"refreshing" should be a criteria when shopping for toothpaste, not the POTUS. Don't underestimate the significance of the fact that he is "absolutely clueless about what's going on".
jessica
but, i'd rather have a hapless fool with his heart in the right place than a calculated, tyrannical monster. trump will eventually get briefed. clinton will never develop a heart.
there's some wizard of oz imagery underlying this, too. one has no brain; the other has no heart.
jenny graves
That's why I'm voting for Bernie.
jessica
i'm a mathematician, and i'm one of many that are pointing out that the process is rigged, jenny. we see the same absurd results again tonight: she wins in a ballot state and gets decimated in the caucus. but, she's supposed to have a 70-30 lead amongst democrats! how can that be?
the party has already decided that clinton will be their nominee, and they don't care what the voters actually think.
the idea of spending less money on war is something that's going to swing more than a few democrats, on it's own. this is realigning, even, when you line it up with his views on trade. i don't like the guy, but i'm having a hard time finding reasons why i should like him less than i like hillary.
but, he continually demonstrates that he's absolutely clueless about what's going on. there's only two ways you can parse his response on ukraine:
(1) he's just totally clueless and in desperate need of a major briefing.
(2) he's some kind of russian spy.
i'm not exaggerating. and while there's actually a few pieces of circumstantial evidence leaning towards (2), russian spies don't get prime time tv slots. they end up like alex jones. it's far more likely that he just hasn't the faintest clue.
yet, as clueless as he may be, that doesn't change the fact that this is so remarkably refreshing.
i've compared him to inspector gadget more than once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVbV-FbnQwo
i'm about as far to the left as you get. if you're going to run an election with one candidate that wants to ramp down nato and pull out of nafta, and another that's a liberal interventionist that was involved in writing the tpp, i wouldn't be much of a leftist if i picked the latter, would i?
i want to be clear: i'm advocating non-voting. neither one is acceptable. but, xenophobic trash aside, trump may honestly be the more left-wing candidate.
--
see, and then anderson cooper runs an essentially issueless interview - except the xenophobia thing. with clinton/cooper, specifically, you know the interview was scripted. so, the attempt is to zero in on a specific issue.
i don't think that's going to work. to begin with, i don't think hillary has nearly the stret cred that she thinks she does on minority rights. but, more importantly, it's just not what people are going to want the election to be about it.
i've been over this already. cue the scary music. build up the drama. easy, right?
here's a case study: the 2006 canadian election tried this tactic and failed badly. the then-ruling liberals, under paul martin, tried to paint stephen harper as an extreme right-wing nutcase that was going to bring in a police state and gut universal healthcare. the actual reality is that they were right, except it would have taken him 30 years to do it because he was a very methodical incrementalist. we got rid of him after nine years - and he had absolutely made baby steps on a number of issues.
but, the tactic backfired because people just didn't believe it. while trump is far more obnoxious than harper, he's also considerably to his left - and far less of an actual threat. you'd have to expect the same kind of reaction. especially in a country where those knocks on the door are already commonplace, under a democratic president.
so, is she going to take him on on all these issues and have to come out to his right over and over again? it's not a clean flip, of course. i'm sure hillary's tax plan will make a little more sense. and, hate it for being regressive all you want, but obamacare is going to win her some votes. so, you're not just looking at a possible realignment, but a possible reconfiguration. you'll get this blue collar republican trump voter that is working class, isolationist, xenophobic and in favour of big government expenditures, along with this moderate conservative vote that backs hillary on security and the constitutional rule of law. you want to run hillary and kasich on one ticket and trump and sanders on the other. and, who knows where everything lands in a couple of years...
--
sanders answered the questions excellently, but i don't see how....what i'm trying to get across is that the questions were framed to prevent him from getting any kind of a bounce. he tried to get some talking points in, but we didn't get that stark contrast that we got in the michigan debates. the choir will nod, but nobody is getting swayed.
sanders needs another debate. and another one. and maybe a third one, too.
jenny graves
"refreshing" should be a criteria when shopping for toothpaste, not the POTUS. Don't underestimate the significance of the fact that he is "absolutely clueless about what's going on".
jessica
but, i'd rather have a hapless fool with his heart in the right place than a calculated, tyrannical monster. trump will eventually get briefed. clinton will never develop a heart.
there's some wizard of oz imagery underlying this, too. one has no brain; the other has no heart.
jenny graves
That's why I'm voting for Bernie.
jessica
i'm a mathematician, and i'm one of many that are pointing out that the process is rigged, jenny. we see the same absurd results again tonight: she wins in a ballot state and gets decimated in the caucus. but, she's supposed to have a 70-30 lead amongst democrats! how can that be?
the party has already decided that clinton will be their nominee, and they don't care what the voters actually think.
at
15:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to painful honesty about the racist undertones of "predictive" political models
"...Hispanics are far more predisposed to voting for..."
what the fuck?
what the fuck?
at
11:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to mar 22nd pre-polling
utah: sanders should be favoured here, and there was a poll released yesterday that upholds this. remember: you can't rig a caucus (or at least not the same way that you can rig a ballot). so, if he gets the turnout then you could see the substantial victory that he needs right now. i said the same thing in illinois, and the language i used was a little more confident than my analysis, but the inability to rig the vote means that i shouldn't be beaten by questionable tactics, like i was there. sanders should really, actually win utah pretty big. an unexpectedly big margin would be a nice boost right now.
idaho: there's no polling at all, but sanders should get a very tentative advantage based on his wins in states like colorado and kansas - or perhaps his projected victories in washington and oregon. i don't know a whole lot about idaho, but maybe it's being pulled between the ocean and the plains, in terms of ideology? it's little more than an educated guess, but i think it's widely agreed upon. and you can't rig a caucus...
arizona: the one released poll had 24% undecided, which suggests a huge level of uncertainty. i am not at all aware of any factors that may sway undecideds in any direction, except the ubiquity of hillary clinton. i do not believe that the kind of media that would help sanders, and probably did in michigan, has happened in arizona over the past week. however, it's well known that sanders has a lot of support in tuscon, too. the cold truth is that there simply isn't any direct data to ground any kind of prediction in. but, there is a lot of reason to think it ought to be somewhere between nevada and colorado, in terms of results. if you see a clinton win with the same kind of margins that she got in some of the southeastern states, it should set off red flags.
idaho: there's no polling at all, but sanders should get a very tentative advantage based on his wins in states like colorado and kansas - or perhaps his projected victories in washington and oregon. i don't know a whole lot about idaho, but maybe it's being pulled between the ocean and the plains, in terms of ideology? it's little more than an educated guess, but i think it's widely agreed upon. and you can't rig a caucus...
arizona: the one released poll had 24% undecided, which suggests a huge level of uncertainty. i am not at all aware of any factors that may sway undecideds in any direction, except the ubiquity of hillary clinton. i do not believe that the kind of media that would help sanders, and probably did in michigan, has happened in arizona over the past week. however, it's well known that sanders has a lot of support in tuscon, too. the cold truth is that there simply isn't any direct data to ground any kind of prediction in. but, there is a lot of reason to think it ought to be somewhere between nevada and colorado, in terms of results. if you see a clinton win with the same kind of margins that she got in some of the southeastern states, it should set off red flags.
at
04:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 6
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
at
03:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the narrowing of the field just helping trump (kasich is the better horse)
cbs february poll:
trump: 35
cruz: 18
kasich: 11
rest/undecided/whatever: 35
cbs march poll:
trump: 46
cruz: 26
kasich: 20
undecided/whatever: 8
it split. pretty cleanly. 10 points each.
if rubio was still running, trump would be hovering around 40 instead of around 50. and, if kasich drops he'll be hovering around 60 instead of around 50.
and, this is national. trump will get another 10+ point bump in the northeast.
if you're voting for kasich at this point, you're pushing back against two very strong factors:
1) the establishment is 100% behind cruz. which is going to backfire any moment, now. he'll win in utah. he may get crushed in arizona, as the anti-establishment vote abandons him and moves to trump.
2) the peer pressure is entirely behind trump. that's where you go, right now, if you're into mindlessly following the herd.
that means you must be pretty independent-minded, that you must have ideas of your own.
the second choice candidate of john kasich supporters is probably hillary clinton.
resist the pressure, john. keep fighting. you're the only thing stopping trump from winning the nomination.
---
the banks have put their support behind an unelectable candidate.
if they want to defeat trump, they need to drop cruz immediately and back kasich. there is a non-zero chance that, if they do that, kasich can win the big northeast states and take it to the convention. trump will demolish cruz in these states, one-on-one.
---
the person responsible for this mess appears to be cruz' wife. that's where the finger pointing should be directed.
---
otherwise, it's plan F.
trump: 35
cruz: 18
kasich: 11
rest/undecided/whatever: 35
cbs march poll:
trump: 46
cruz: 26
kasich: 20
undecided/whatever: 8
it split. pretty cleanly. 10 points each.
if rubio was still running, trump would be hovering around 40 instead of around 50. and, if kasich drops he'll be hovering around 60 instead of around 50.
and, this is national. trump will get another 10+ point bump in the northeast.
if you're voting for kasich at this point, you're pushing back against two very strong factors:
1) the establishment is 100% behind cruz. which is going to backfire any moment, now. he'll win in utah. he may get crushed in arizona, as the anti-establishment vote abandons him and moves to trump.
2) the peer pressure is entirely behind trump. that's where you go, right now, if you're into mindlessly following the herd.
that means you must be pretty independent-minded, that you must have ideas of your own.
the second choice candidate of john kasich supporters is probably hillary clinton.
resist the pressure, john. keep fighting. you're the only thing stopping trump from winning the nomination.
---
the banks have put their support behind an unelectable candidate.
if they want to defeat trump, they need to drop cruz immediately and back kasich. there is a non-zero chance that, if they do that, kasich can win the big northeast states and take it to the convention. trump will demolish cruz in these states, one-on-one.
---
the person responsible for this mess appears to be cruz' wife. that's where the finger pointing should be directed.
---
otherwise, it's plan F.
at
03:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)