https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
this is more or less what i voted for, to start. no complaints.
i don't particularly care about the deficit, but it should be pointed out that they're being transparent in setting low expectations that they can outperform.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-budget-2016-highlights-1.3501803
i don't particularly care about the deficit, but it should be pointed out that they're being transparent in setting low expectations that they can outperform.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-budget-2016-highlights-1.3501803
at
17:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to a woman that is livid about voter fraud in the democratic primaries
so, i've been following the election from up in canada, where i'm a fairly objective observer. and i happen to have a mathematical background. i'm the only person that i'm aware of that called for a split in michigan - based simply on polling data.
i think that what you're seeing is just classic ballot box stuffing in the city districts - cook county & downtown boston were the ones with the biggest psychological outcomes (although, have a little patience with the pacifists, because it's the delegate count that matters and whether bernie carries a state with 55 or loses it with 45 doesn't matter a lot, even if it adds up - he's not behind because he lost illinois, he's behind because he got beaten in the southeast, and he has to find somewhere where he can win by similar margins to balance it out) to this point, but i think we've also seen it in cleveland, detroit, atlanta and, now, phoenix.
the way this works is that she floods the early voting results with mail-in and absentee ballots. this tactic was very clear in both ohio and arizona (as well as illinois and missouri), where the initial results came in with her up around 75-25. she's basically giving herself a huge head start - 50,000+ votes. then, when the actual votes come in, they have to make up the difference. and, you can add in the voter suppression tactics on top of this.
what that means is that there really isn't a conspiracy with the exit polls. you claim the data is staying put all night. this isn't actually the case, from what i've seen. rather, the margins get closer and closer all night. and, that is actually a classic sign of data-rigging.
in fact, the reason the networks are calling it so early is that they would expect - if the votes are fair - that the early voting would be roughly the same as the late voting. if the networks were looking for it, they would notice that the results that they're seeing are very suspicious - they shouldn't be watching the tallies narrow predictably over and over. an election where clinton gets 75% with early voters and 40% with day-of voters is just about the most obvious fraud you could contemplate. but, that is, in fact, what we're seeing, in state after state.
but, you have to understand that clinton can't do this by herself. this is a full party effort. and, what it means is that the party had already chosen it's candidate before the voting started, and the outcome was never in doubt. the party is just expecting sanders to act as bait. that's all this process ever was about. sanders will not be the democratic nominee, and the idea that he ever would be was never seriously on the table.
the thing is that sanders has to know this. what you're going to find out in the next few weeks is whether he's been playing along, and was just doing outreach for hillary the whole time, or whether this was a plan from the start to use the democratic primary as a launching pad for a run as an independent.
for right now? she's no doubt going to pull the same trick in seattle. he should get something like 75% in washington, but it will probably roughly split due to early voting mail-ins. and, the race will be officially done. you'll have to see what he does, next.
*washington is not an open primary, but an open caucus. that changes everything. it is easy to see that i would have suggested a large sanders win is most likely if i thought it was a caucus.
i think that what you're seeing is just classic ballot box stuffing in the city districts - cook county & downtown boston were the ones with the biggest psychological outcomes (although, have a little patience with the pacifists, because it's the delegate count that matters and whether bernie carries a state with 55 or loses it with 45 doesn't matter a lot, even if it adds up - he's not behind because he lost illinois, he's behind because he got beaten in the southeast, and he has to find somewhere where he can win by similar margins to balance it out) to this point, but i think we've also seen it in cleveland, detroit, atlanta and, now, phoenix.
the way this works is that she floods the early voting results with mail-in and absentee ballots. this tactic was very clear in both ohio and arizona (as well as illinois and missouri), where the initial results came in with her up around 75-25. she's basically giving herself a huge head start - 50,000+ votes. then, when the actual votes come in, they have to make up the difference. and, you can add in the voter suppression tactics on top of this.
what that means is that there really isn't a conspiracy with the exit polls. you claim the data is staying put all night. this isn't actually the case, from what i've seen. rather, the margins get closer and closer all night. and, that is actually a classic sign of data-rigging.
in fact, the reason the networks are calling it so early is that they would expect - if the votes are fair - that the early voting would be roughly the same as the late voting. if the networks were looking for it, they would notice that the results that they're seeing are very suspicious - they shouldn't be watching the tallies narrow predictably over and over. an election where clinton gets 75% with early voters and 40% with day-of voters is just about the most obvious fraud you could contemplate. but, that is, in fact, what we're seeing, in state after state.
but, you have to understand that clinton can't do this by herself. this is a full party effort. and, what it means is that the party had already chosen it's candidate before the voting started, and the outcome was never in doubt. the party is just expecting sanders to act as bait. that's all this process ever was about. sanders will not be the democratic nominee, and the idea that he ever would be was never seriously on the table.
the thing is that sanders has to know this. what you're going to find out in the next few weeks is whether he's been playing along, and was just doing outreach for hillary the whole time, or whether this was a plan from the start to use the democratic primary as a launching pad for a run as an independent.
for right now? she's no doubt going to pull the same trick in seattle. he should get something like 75% in washington, but it will probably roughly split due to early voting mail-ins. and, the race will be officially done. you'll have to see what he does, next.
*washington is not an open primary, but an open caucus. that changes everything. it is easy to see that i would have suggested a large sanders win is most likely if i thought it was a caucus.
at
15:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm going to put out an open request for polling in washington for the democratic primary. there was no meaningful polling done in arizona, and i don't think that's an accident - i don't think anybody (except maybe sanders...) wanted there to be polling to consult. if you can do some polling, please do so.
at
03:51
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to mar 26th predictions
so, what's the next round going to be like?
i haven't really poked the models in the eyes, yet. i refused to accept the argument that sanders had a better chance in ohio than he did in illinois due to racial breakdowns, and i suggested that michigan would be a split, but i've otherwise largely arrived at the same conclusions, via different metrics. and, you might expect that, really - as i'm arguing that race is a proxy variable, rather than a predictive one. as such, you'd expect it should work out more often than not, even if it's logically incoherent to suggest that racial breakdown is a causal factor.
alaska and hawaii are giving me an opportunity to push back a little, although i need to provide the caveat that i have not seen any polling and reserve the right to modify my analysis as a consequence of direct data appearing.
so, the models will tell you that there aren't any black people in hawaii or alaska, so bernie should win big. it's a lack of people predisposed to voting for clinton due to the colour of their skin. i take a different view.
rather, let's look at votes, so far, for places outside of the contiguous 48.
american samoa
clinton: 68
sanders: 26
northern marianas
clinton: 54
sanders: 34
this is a small sample, and direct polling will render it obsolete. but, i think it's a better measure in at least hawaii - if maybe less so in alaska.
we should not forget this:
democrats abroad
clinton: 31
sanders: 69
...but, it's not the same thing as a state or territorial primary. sanders has consistently outperformed clinton with people that are very liberal and people that are very educated. if you're going to vote in the democratic primary from singapore or something, chances are that you're both. nor are we dealing with indigenous inhabitants. so, that should be removed.
the takeaway is that i can't automatically favour sanders in either of these states. although, note that they are caucuses. and, you know what i say about caucuses...
without direct polling, i think clinton's tendency to do better in distant territories gives her an immediate advantage in hawaii - even if it's not a large one. that logic may be less applicable to alaska, but it's at least as useful as racial profiling.
how about washington? well, i need to learn from past experiences. it looks like she cheated in arizona and ohio and inflated the wins. it looks like she cheated in masachusetts and illinois and snatched victory away from defeat. and it looks like she cheated in michigan and lost anyways. why wouldn't i expect her to cheat in washington?
washington is an open primary, which is the same as michigan and illinois. so, he ought to demolish her, there. 70% should be a low bar. but, that just means she'll stuff ten times as many ballots and make it that much harder for people to vote.
so, this is my actual prediction for washington: if there is any remaining doubt about whether this process is rigged or not, it will be over by the time washington is tabulated. washington will just make it that much more obvious.
*washington is not an open primary, but an open caucus. that changes everything. it is easy to see that i would have suggested a large sanders win is most likely if i thought it was a caucus.
i haven't really poked the models in the eyes, yet. i refused to accept the argument that sanders had a better chance in ohio than he did in illinois due to racial breakdowns, and i suggested that michigan would be a split, but i've otherwise largely arrived at the same conclusions, via different metrics. and, you might expect that, really - as i'm arguing that race is a proxy variable, rather than a predictive one. as such, you'd expect it should work out more often than not, even if it's logically incoherent to suggest that racial breakdown is a causal factor.
alaska and hawaii are giving me an opportunity to push back a little, although i need to provide the caveat that i have not seen any polling and reserve the right to modify my analysis as a consequence of direct data appearing.
so, the models will tell you that there aren't any black people in hawaii or alaska, so bernie should win big. it's a lack of people predisposed to voting for clinton due to the colour of their skin. i take a different view.
rather, let's look at votes, so far, for places outside of the contiguous 48.
american samoa
clinton: 68
sanders: 26
northern marianas
clinton: 54
sanders: 34
this is a small sample, and direct polling will render it obsolete. but, i think it's a better measure in at least hawaii - if maybe less so in alaska.
we should not forget this:
democrats abroad
clinton: 31
sanders: 69
...but, it's not the same thing as a state or territorial primary. sanders has consistently outperformed clinton with people that are very liberal and people that are very educated. if you're going to vote in the democratic primary from singapore or something, chances are that you're both. nor are we dealing with indigenous inhabitants. so, that should be removed.
the takeaway is that i can't automatically favour sanders in either of these states. although, note that they are caucuses. and, you know what i say about caucuses...
without direct polling, i think clinton's tendency to do better in distant territories gives her an immediate advantage in hawaii - even if it's not a large one. that logic may be less applicable to alaska, but it's at least as useful as racial profiling.
how about washington? well, i need to learn from past experiences. it looks like she cheated in arizona and ohio and inflated the wins. it looks like she cheated in masachusetts and illinois and snatched victory away from defeat. and it looks like she cheated in michigan and lost anyways. why wouldn't i expect her to cheat in washington?
washington is an open primary, which is the same as michigan and illinois. so, he ought to demolish her, there. 70% should be a low bar. but, that just means she'll stuff ten times as many ballots and make it that much harder for people to vote.
so, this is my actual prediction for washington: if there is any remaining doubt about whether this process is rigged or not, it will be over by the time washington is tabulated. washington will just make it that much more obvious.
*washington is not an open primary, but an open caucus. that changes everything. it is easy to see that i would have suggested a large sanders win is most likely if i thought it was a caucus.
at
03:38
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the mar 22 results
i didn't see the results start coming in, but let me guess: hillary started with 70% "initial results", and it's been coming down all night, right?
there's not enough caucus states. and all evidence suggests that they're going to respond to any push back by stuffing more.
it was over before it started. all you can do in response is refuse to vote for her, and hope a third-party appears with enough of a movement behind it to make a difference.
this is happening in state after state.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/22/live-arizona-primary-coverage-presidential-preference-election/82096726/
http://usuncut.com/news/arizona-polling-disaster/
i claimed bernie needed to be aiming for a 50+ haul tonight, which would have been a 70% floor over all. he did get close to 80% in both utah and idaho, but....arizona carried on the same pattern where clinton's lead in "initial results" was far too big to overcome with real votes. it's come down a lot over the night, as it did in other places. i will reiterate: i don't think clinton or the party is doing this for delegates (if you split a 45/55 result, it's not much of a delegate difference - although it does add up over 30 states if it consistently leans in the same direction) so much as i think it's about the tv coverage. hillary clinton is probably the country's last serious conventional media candidate. her base is not determined by skin colour or language or anything of the sort so much as it's determined by age. so, she's playing to the boomer and early xer tendency to watch the results on tv and go to bed. that's the real reason she's giving herself these insurmountable leads with supposed early voters - so that her base can go to bed seeing her ahead by 20--30 points, and conclude she's winning comfortably.
my math had him win washington 60-40 and pointed out a 70-30 win would give him some breathing room. after underperforming in arizona, he needs to be looking at something more like the 75-80% he just got in idaho and utah in order to just stay on path.
he has to win washington by a huge margin. it may be his last serious stand.
there's not enough caucus states. and all evidence suggests that they're going to respond to any push back by stuffing more.
it was over before it started. all you can do in response is refuse to vote for her, and hope a third-party appears with enough of a movement behind it to make a difference.
this is happening in state after state.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/22/live-arizona-primary-coverage-presidential-preference-election/82096726/
http://usuncut.com/news/arizona-polling-disaster/
i claimed bernie needed to be aiming for a 50+ haul tonight, which would have been a 70% floor over all. he did get close to 80% in both utah and idaho, but....arizona carried on the same pattern where clinton's lead in "initial results" was far too big to overcome with real votes. it's come down a lot over the night, as it did in other places. i will reiterate: i don't think clinton or the party is doing this for delegates (if you split a 45/55 result, it's not much of a delegate difference - although it does add up over 30 states if it consistently leans in the same direction) so much as i think it's about the tv coverage. hillary clinton is probably the country's last serious conventional media candidate. her base is not determined by skin colour or language or anything of the sort so much as it's determined by age. so, she's playing to the boomer and early xer tendency to watch the results on tv and go to bed. that's the real reason she's giving herself these insurmountable leads with supposed early voters - so that her base can go to bed seeing her ahead by 20--30 points, and conclude she's winning comfortably.
my math had him win washington 60-40 and pointed out a 70-30 win would give him some breathing room. after underperforming in arizona, he needs to be looking at something more like the 75-80% he just got in idaho and utah in order to just stay on path.
he has to win washington by a huge margin. it may be his last serious stand.
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)