i need to state again that i didn't analyse the polls leading into the election, i was simply expressing some concern surrounding things like voter id laws, based on what i learned in 2016.
and, what happened tonight?
well, it seems like the democrats did find a way to win back some white voters, after all. watching the early results come in, it looked like a replay of 2016, but when the numbers come in, you're going to see that the important swing is amongst whites in the midwest, not amongst blacks or hispanics in the south.
the irony with kobeck losing is that his tactics weren't applicable to his own district, out in cornfield, kansas, where there weren't any duplicate mexican names to purge. oops.
so, understand this: if the plan was to win a lot of seats in the south on the strength of minority voters, as has been broadcasted for the last several cycles, then that appears to have failed, yet again. they may have flipped a few, but just barely - they lost almost all of the seats that they were relying on minority strength to win. the more convincing wins are in the mostly white rust belt, and i guess you'll have to ask the voters there why they flipped back. you'd think these people would be broadly happy with the new trade deal. isn't that why they voted for trump in the first place? and, perhaps you may find that these particular democrats are more likely to back it, whether the voters realized it or not.
so, if one accepts the idea that trump's strength in the region was due to his opposition to nafta (even if he won due to voter suppression tactics - and, yes, there's plenty of documented evidence of this), it may seem like a strange reward to lose the house, when he delivered on something better - but when you realize that a democratic controlled house is more likely to ratify the new agreement than a republican one, it turns the logic on it's head. after all, trump is governing more like a democrat than a republican. and, like i say, who really knows if this is conscious or not.
regardless, it seems like the balance of power in the new democratic house is actually going to be disproportionately white, and operate disproportionately in the interests of rust belt workers, who have demonstrated themselves as the most important swing in the country. so, it's going to be interesting to see how well trump can work with the house - and whether or not he finds it easier to deal with a democratic house than he does with a republican senate.
i went over a lot of this in my analysis of the 2016 election, which i've been sprinkling into the page over the last several months, and i'm now almost caught up with. seems like i may have jumped the gun a little.
fwiw, i don't think that clinton would have picked somebody less conservative than kavanaugh. she is, after all, on the record as supporting a constitutional amendment to restrict abortion rights for essentially her whole life, and very purposefully picked a pro-life running mate to get the point across. those are the facts, here. sorry.
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
but, weren't the seats they needed to flip mostly in the southeast and midwest?
this question of whether the democrats need to reach out or rev up their base is missing the point. obviously, it's better to rev up your base - and if you lean left, it's easy to understand why you'd prefer it, even if it's a bad tactic. do you want this because you think it's going to work better, or do you want this because you want this.
the point is that the votes aren't being counted. you can rev the base up all you want, it means nothing if they get to the station and can't vote, or can't get to the station to vote at all. and, standing in california - or in canada - it is hard to understand how hard it is for the base to actually vote in the south, and increasingly in the midwest.
obviously, you want to fight for these people to be able to vote. but, you have to win the elections, first. even if you get the buses out and everything else, you still can't be sure the votes are going to count - or enough of them will, anyways.
so, this isn't a choice.
the democrats must find a way to win back enough white voters to flip enough districts to undo the longterm damage.
this question of whether the democrats need to reach out or rev up their base is missing the point. obviously, it's better to rev up your base - and if you lean left, it's easy to understand why you'd prefer it, even if it's a bad tactic. do you want this because you think it's going to work better, or do you want this because you want this.
the point is that the votes aren't being counted. you can rev the base up all you want, it means nothing if they get to the station and can't vote, or can't get to the station to vote at all. and, standing in california - or in canada - it is hard to understand how hard it is for the base to actually vote in the south, and increasingly in the midwest.
obviously, you want to fight for these people to be able to vote. but, you have to win the elections, first. even if you get the buses out and everything else, you still can't be sure the votes are going to count - or enough of them will, anyways.
so, this isn't a choice.
the democrats must find a way to win back enough white voters to flip enough districts to undo the longterm damage.
another way to understand what i just said is to point out that this approach has a wide error bar, and is consequently only able to present a wide range of results. so, depending on how it is being presented, it can appear to be very wrong, without being wrong at all. you just have to understand how to read it correctly.
it seems like they're trying to fit national data for the house races, and using local data for the gubernatorial ones. they probably should have used the same methodology for the house (and senate.) that they're using for the governor races. and, given that this data probably exists here - as opposed to in a presidential election, where it might not - they probably have less of an argument about a deficit of data.
this is the same argument i've been making for years.
and i have no understanding at all about what affect it may have on the outcome.
one possibility that you could see is that millennial turnout may end up very high in already-leaning democratic districts. if that happens, the election results will be spitting on a fish, and not a lot of seats will flip. the popular vote will end up as a mirage. that is probably the most extreme type of error, but how unlikely is it, really? i mean, if what's driving this is saturday night live, the polls may be broadcasting a kind of circle jerk in the easily led "still watches tv in 2018" demographic - even if these are the same people annoying you on facebook with dubious articles from vox.
again: i have no understanding of what the numbers say. i'm not suggesting that this will affect the accuracy of the outcome. but, you should expect a model like this to be off by quite a bit - it can't be anything better than a crude guess.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-final-forecast-in-the-senate-house-and-gubernatorial-races/
this is the same argument i've been making for years.
and i have no understanding at all about what affect it may have on the outcome.
one possibility that you could see is that millennial turnout may end up very high in already-leaning democratic districts. if that happens, the election results will be spitting on a fish, and not a lot of seats will flip. the popular vote will end up as a mirage. that is probably the most extreme type of error, but how unlikely is it, really? i mean, if what's driving this is saturday night live, the polls may be broadcasting a kind of circle jerk in the easily led "still watches tv in 2018" demographic - even if these are the same people annoying you on facebook with dubious articles from vox.
again: i have no understanding of what the numbers say. i'm not suggesting that this will affect the accuracy of the outcome. but, you should expect a model like this to be off by quite a bit - it can't be anything better than a crude guess.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-final-forecast-in-the-senate-house-and-gubernatorial-races/
ok, so, i think i finally understand what was wrong with those airwalks.
they were slippers. that is, they were made out of felt. apparently, converse does this, too. they apparently don't have to pay as many taxes that way - which makes it that much more shady.
these airwalk ones are supposedly the real deal - for the same $30 i paid for the classics, with the felt bottoms. let's hope they are.
then, do i keep the vans? i dunno. probably not. i don't need four pairs of sneakers....but maybe i can come up with an excuse.
they were slippers. that is, they were made out of felt. apparently, converse does this, too. they apparently don't have to pay as many taxes that way - which makes it that much more shady.
these airwalk ones are supposedly the real deal - for the same $30 i paid for the classics, with the felt bottoms. let's hope they are.
then, do i keep the vans? i dunno. probably not. i don't need four pairs of sneakers....but maybe i can come up with an excuse.
so, i just bought two pairs of airwalk ones. in 2018. they were cheap - i'm interpreting it as 2-for-1. one in red and one in the classic grey & white. these are the suede & rubber shoes that i've been looking at puma to emulate.
see, i don't know the exact history, but i suspect the airwalks were aping on the pumas in the first place. regardless, it's the airwalks i wanted. so, why not go for it.
they say the soles are rubber; we'll find out when they get here. if they are, and these are really just like the old airwalks, then i got two pairs of good shoes for cheap. it seems like this is the right time, as they were limited edition and not being re-run. if these are good shoes, i might have fluked out. if the soles are pvc or something, i can use them as very comfortable throwaways.
i guess it puts the vans on notice if these are good shoes, because i'll want to keep the platforms as dress shoes. i dunno, though. i may just keep them, too. it rules out the extra pumas, for now. probably.
and, if they end up as throwaways, then i'm done, save for a potential trip to the puma store, probably in the spring.
to be clear: i wanted classic airwalk-style, well built comfortable skate shoes. i don't care what the brand name is. i ended up getting some weird mid-top vans as a compromise because i needed shoes, but the only thing i could really find in the style i wanted were pumas, and the store didn't have them in my size. so, i ordered some pumas in my size when i got home and they are, in fact, exactly what i wanted. and, now i've ordered some throwback airwalks, too, after all - potentially in the last few days that i could. if that works out, i probably won't want the vans anymore. but, if they get here and they're shit, i'll use them as throwaway and keep the vans...and maybe get another pair of pumas, too.
i'm finding myself choosing between airwalk classics and puma classics here, and it's not because i'm attached to the style or the past - it's because i want some well made shoes. i may have fluked out and found what i really wanted, but in the long run i'm probably going to be defaulting to those pumas...
see, i don't know the exact history, but i suspect the airwalks were aping on the pumas in the first place. regardless, it's the airwalks i wanted. so, why not go for it.
they say the soles are rubber; we'll find out when they get here. if they are, and these are really just like the old airwalks, then i got two pairs of good shoes for cheap. it seems like this is the right time, as they were limited edition and not being re-run. if these are good shoes, i might have fluked out. if the soles are pvc or something, i can use them as very comfortable throwaways.
i guess it puts the vans on notice if these are good shoes, because i'll want to keep the platforms as dress shoes. i dunno, though. i may just keep them, too. it rules out the extra pumas, for now. probably.
and, if they end up as throwaways, then i'm done, save for a potential trip to the puma store, probably in the spring.
to be clear: i wanted classic airwalk-style, well built comfortable skate shoes. i don't care what the brand name is. i ended up getting some weird mid-top vans as a compromise because i needed shoes, but the only thing i could really find in the style i wanted were pumas, and the store didn't have them in my size. so, i ordered some pumas in my size when i got home and they are, in fact, exactly what i wanted. and, now i've ordered some throwback airwalks, too, after all - potentially in the last few days that i could. if that works out, i probably won't want the vans anymore. but, if they get here and they're shit, i'll use them as throwaway and keep the vans...and maybe get another pair of pumas, too.
i'm finding myself choosing between airwalk classics and puma classics here, and it's not because i'm attached to the style or the past - it's because i want some well made shoes. i may have fluked out and found what i really wanted, but in the long run i'm probably going to be defaulting to those pumas...
my shoes also came in today, and they fit perfectly. that's a size 7 kids shoe.
so, i ended up with
1) size 7 kids pink puma classics with what is a questionable sole for girlishness use. the ad said rubber, but i think it's pvc. disappointing. i'm going to keep these because they're cute, but i may get an adult pair, too.
2) size 9 women's black suede rubber platforms, which are sort of dressier. i wanted these to be walking shoes due to the huge rubber soles, but they're kind of too nice to trudge around in and i think i'm going to put them aside.
3) size 8.5 women's mid-top black canvas vans, with rubber sole & pink laces. these are probably better for long walks, even if the soles aren't quite as thick. i would see these as more expendable.
4) size 7 men's waterproof hiking boots, brownish, ozark trail. these are for walking around in the slush. growing up in ottawa, i've usually had a pair of boots like this, but i initially decided i wouldn't need them in windsor. i'm hoping these last a while and can be pulled out when useful.
i already had
5) size 6 children's rain boots, bluish. these should last for years.
6) size 6 children's winter boots, black. i'm going to need to touch these up a little as there's some hairline cracks in the front, but these are what i'll use to go out in the actual snow, if or when i have to. if i can fix the cracks and just wear them when necessary, these could last years and years.
7) falling apart airwalk classics that were size 9 women's.
8) some falling apart walking shoes i bought at the dollar store.
outside of potentially buying a second pair of puma classics in search of more clearly rubber soles, the last thing i'm going to want is a pair of super cheap shoes for bicycling. i considered shoe gooing the airwalks, but the bottoms are just trash - which is frustrating because the shoes themselves are otherwise so much better built than any of the others around the heel and the toe. if i could find another pair of them, and just replace the sole altogether, though...
and, i think that should probably last me quite a long time, hopefully. i mean, that's the intent; this isn't frivolous. i'm trying to figure out my footwear needs for the next several years now, while i have a good opportunity, and then ensure i don't have to worry about it for a while. i now have rain boots, snow boots, slush boots, cute running shoes (with a skate rubber sole), dressy platform shoes and what seem like pretty comfortable utility shoes (also with a skate rubber sole). i can probably benefit from a second pair of decently built running shoes, and i need some kind of cheap throwaways for utility. but, that should do me. really. for a while..
i'm 5' 8", i don't feel i need heels or pumps. and, i don't exist in the business world, either. i've had these discussions with people at bars "i wish i wore more comfortable shoes". i wish you did, too. really. i have some girlier shoes, but i don't have a lot of opportunities to wear them, and don't see the use in spending money on them.
so, i ended up with
1) size 7 kids pink puma classics with what is a questionable sole for girlishness use. the ad said rubber, but i think it's pvc. disappointing. i'm going to keep these because they're cute, but i may get an adult pair, too.
2) size 9 women's black suede rubber platforms, which are sort of dressier. i wanted these to be walking shoes due to the huge rubber soles, but they're kind of too nice to trudge around in and i think i'm going to put them aside.
3) size 8.5 women's mid-top black canvas vans, with rubber sole & pink laces. these are probably better for long walks, even if the soles aren't quite as thick. i would see these as more expendable.
4) size 7 men's waterproof hiking boots, brownish, ozark trail. these are for walking around in the slush. growing up in ottawa, i've usually had a pair of boots like this, but i initially decided i wouldn't need them in windsor. i'm hoping these last a while and can be pulled out when useful.
i already had
5) size 6 children's rain boots, bluish. these should last for years.
6) size 6 children's winter boots, black. i'm going to need to touch these up a little as there's some hairline cracks in the front, but these are what i'll use to go out in the actual snow, if or when i have to. if i can fix the cracks and just wear them when necessary, these could last years and years.
7) falling apart airwalk classics that were size 9 women's.
8) some falling apart walking shoes i bought at the dollar store.
outside of potentially buying a second pair of puma classics in search of more clearly rubber soles, the last thing i'm going to want is a pair of super cheap shoes for bicycling. i considered shoe gooing the airwalks, but the bottoms are just trash - which is frustrating because the shoes themselves are otherwise so much better built than any of the others around the heel and the toe. if i could find another pair of them, and just replace the sole altogether, though...
and, i think that should probably last me quite a long time, hopefully. i mean, that's the intent; this isn't frivolous. i'm trying to figure out my footwear needs for the next several years now, while i have a good opportunity, and then ensure i don't have to worry about it for a while. i now have rain boots, snow boots, slush boots, cute running shoes (with a skate rubber sole), dressy platform shoes and what seem like pretty comfortable utility shoes (also with a skate rubber sole). i can probably benefit from a second pair of decently built running shoes, and i need some kind of cheap throwaways for utility. but, that should do me. really. for a while..
i'm 5' 8", i don't feel i need heels or pumps. and, i don't exist in the business world, either. i've had these discussions with people at bars "i wish i wore more comfortable shoes". i wish you did, too. really. i have some girlier shoes, but i don't have a lot of opportunities to wear them, and don't see the use in spending money on them.
i didn't get started on this again until after midnight, so i only picked up a few things.
so, the coffee machine is about 0.18. i've never noticed it as a problem, previously.
the 150 W bulb is the 3:00 reading, suggesting it's about 0.15 if run alone. i think a 0.01-0.02 fluctuation is acceptable noise. this is far too much for one light, either way - and is consistent enough.
and, it would seem as though the fan is running at 0.1/hr or so. this is kind of an unavoidable cost, i was more interested in getting the fan alone so i can get a clean reading on the heat lamp.
i measured the fan with the heat lamp & the fan with the led this morning, which i'll be able to compare tomorrow afternoon.
so, the coffee machine is about 0.18. i've never noticed it as a problem, previously.
the 150 W bulb is the 3:00 reading, suggesting it's about 0.15 if run alone. i think a 0.01-0.02 fluctuation is acceptable noise. this is far too much for one light, either way - and is consistent enough.
and, it would seem as though the fan is running at 0.1/hr or so. this is kind of an unavoidable cost, i was more interested in getting the fan alone so i can get a clean reading on the heat lamp.
i measured the fan with the heat lamp & the fan with the led this morning, which i'll be able to compare tomorrow afternoon.
i've also uploaded three blog posts that i wrote in 2016 and i'm dating to 1996. these were written for the liner notes for inri000 & the music blog in general; while i won't be mirroring here, i will be reconstructing this page from 1996-2013 as a part of the alter-reality, and uploading various historical writings, as they come up. that should separate out over 1997, which was supposed to happen over 2017. i will need to track down my old usenet posts...
it was when i moved across town that i got internet access in my room, and i started posting to usenet.
these are the three posts, which are creative writing, but are politically relevant.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/1996/05/really-enjoying-new-soundgarden-record.html
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/1996/06/the-quake-soundtrack-is-really-really.html
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/1996/07/scenery-and-fish-and-building-rooms-in.html
it was when i moved across town that i got internet access in my room, and i started posting to usenet.
these are the three posts, which are creative writing, but are politically relevant.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/1996/05/really-enjoying-new-soundgarden-record.html
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/1996/06/the-quake-soundtrack-is-really-really.html
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/1996/07/scenery-and-fish-and-building-rooms-in.html
so, that gets me through season 9, which is most of the way through august, 2016. i need to have a big meal before i finish the rest of the month, and then get to real world stuff for tomorrow morning. i think the lights were seriously the last thing to build for the bathroom; the next step is to set up the dining/living room, which will also act as a side library. that should take me through the rest of the week, meaning i should be able to get started on season 10 by the weekend, hopefully.
i just need to keep working and get through it as quickly as i can.
i just need to keep working and get through it as quickly as i can.
listen: it's less that i'm not on either side of the election, although i suppose that is a technical truth. it's more that i take a kind of classical anarchist position: it is the democrats and republicans that are actually on the same side, which is the side of capitalism. the side i am on is the side that opposes both parties, and broadly equally so.
from about 1930-1990 or so, the democrats were usually the least evil option. the lines started to blur with clinton, and the spectrum may be shifting with trump.
but, realizing that the republicans may be becoming the lesser evil is not to take their side against the democrats, or switch sides, because i was never on the side of the democrats in the first place, and the republicans are still very evil.
races for the senate and the house and the governor and etc are going to more individualistic. as an anarchist, i would have never presented a party preference; the reality is that the vast majority of these races are inconsequential, and the candidates will end up with virtually indistinguishable voting records. in some cases, there may be democratic candidates worth supporting; in others, there may be republican candidates worth supporting. but, broadly speaking, i am more likely to support an independent or third party candidate than i am to support either of the two major parties, who i see as broadly interchangeable.
to an extent, i guess if the republicans think i'm secretly a democrat and the democrats think i'm secretly a republican then the conclusion is that i must be a fair voice - and not one in the centre (the centre of a one-party state is the one-party state, itself), but one outside of the spectrum. and, i often place myself outside of the discourse - because the side i'm on is the one that opposes the two of them equally, as a two-headed monster.
the facts on the ground are that the republicans are engaging in massive, widespread vote suppression tactics, and that the effects of these efforts have been decisive in multiple contests over the last several years, including the last presidential election. any polling analysis consequently needs to be very careful that it isn't overestimating support amongst groups that are going to have difficulty voting.
and, that is truly the extent of my analysis.
from about 1930-1990 or so, the democrats were usually the least evil option. the lines started to blur with clinton, and the spectrum may be shifting with trump.
but, realizing that the republicans may be becoming the lesser evil is not to take their side against the democrats, or switch sides, because i was never on the side of the democrats in the first place, and the republicans are still very evil.
races for the senate and the house and the governor and etc are going to more individualistic. as an anarchist, i would have never presented a party preference; the reality is that the vast majority of these races are inconsequential, and the candidates will end up with virtually indistinguishable voting records. in some cases, there may be democratic candidates worth supporting; in others, there may be republican candidates worth supporting. but, broadly speaking, i am more likely to support an independent or third party candidate than i am to support either of the two major parties, who i see as broadly interchangeable.
to an extent, i guess if the republicans think i'm secretly a democrat and the democrats think i'm secretly a republican then the conclusion is that i must be a fair voice - and not one in the centre (the centre of a one-party state is the one-party state, itself), but one outside of the spectrum. and, i often place myself outside of the discourse - because the side i'm on is the one that opposes the two of them equally, as a two-headed monster.
the facts on the ground are that the republicans are engaging in massive, widespread vote suppression tactics, and that the effects of these efforts have been decisive in multiple contests over the last several years, including the last presidential election. any polling analysis consequently needs to be very careful that it isn't overestimating support amongst groups that are going to have difficulty voting.
and, that is truly the extent of my analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)