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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
Monday, March 21, 2016
shit hillary said vol 5
“We have a lot of evidence now that the death penalty has been too frequently applied, and too often in a discriminatory way. So I think we have to take a hard look at it. I do not favor abolishing it, however, because I do think there are certain egregious cases that still deserve the consideration of the death penalty, but I’d like to see those be very limited and rare, as opposed to what we’ve seen in most states.”
Sunday, March 20, 2016
j reacts to the potential in co-opting trump's movement for the left
those of us on the left have a lot of experience with these people at alter-globalization events. they're cops.
trump runs an election about overturning free trade. the same agents show up.
there's no mystery about what's happening. it's absolutely consistent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
--
should the left re-evaluate it's approach to trump?
again: i'll never endorse him. i'll endorse non-voting. which is passive, but equivalent.
but, the reality is that trump is no less of a potential ally than clinton. it just depends on the issue. maybe. i don't actually believe that clinton is an advocate of anybody: not gay people, not black people - nobody. she works for the banks, and that's it. but, you could make the argument that clinton is better on those kinds of things [you should expect similar supreme court nominees as the ones you got from obama], but trump is better on trade.
the truth is that trump is drawing attention to trade issues on the left in ways that sanders or stein never could. he's raising awareness. call him a useful idiot [even if you have to abuse the language], but if he can mainline opposition to free trade then he's doing the left a massive favour.
so, instead of falling into these divide and conquer lines and kneejerking in conflict? go to the trump rallies. talk to people. empathize on trade. but, then maybe talk a little about health care. a little about taxes. start from that point of agreement and try and build on it.
the smart approach is to try to co-opt this, not to try and shut it down.
trump runs an election about overturning free trade. the same agents show up.
there's no mystery about what's happening. it's absolutely consistent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
--
should the left re-evaluate it's approach to trump?
again: i'll never endorse him. i'll endorse non-voting. which is passive, but equivalent.
but, the reality is that trump is no less of a potential ally than clinton. it just depends on the issue. maybe. i don't actually believe that clinton is an advocate of anybody: not gay people, not black people - nobody. she works for the banks, and that's it. but, you could make the argument that clinton is better on those kinds of things [you should expect similar supreme court nominees as the ones you got from obama], but trump is better on trade.
the truth is that trump is drawing attention to trade issues on the left in ways that sanders or stein never could. he's raising awareness. call him a useful idiot [even if you have to abuse the language], but if he can mainline opposition to free trade then he's doing the left a massive favour.
so, instead of falling into these divide and conquer lines and kneejerking in conflict? go to the trump rallies. talk to people. empathize on trade. but, then maybe talk a little about health care. a little about taxes. start from that point of agreement and try and build on it.
the smart approach is to try to co-opt this, not to try and shut it down.
j reacts to trump getting the math, and how it reflects on cruz not getting it
"TRUMP: Well, I think if I'm a few short and I have, you know, 1,200 or if I have 1,100 and somebody else is at 300 or 400 or 500, which is very likely going to be the case, uh, and if I'm a little bit short -- and one of the reasons was we had so many candidates. I mean we started off with 17 candidates. And it came down to, you know, finally, it's down to three, frankly. But, you know, there are so many candidates, so it's very hard to get over that number. It's very unfair, in a way. But because of the fact that there's so many candidates and so many candidates are grabbing delegates. Now, here's what I say, because -- and now they're out. And now they're out. So I think I will get over that number. I think I may get over that number fairly easily."
are you taking notes, ted?
do you want this guy (cruz) making tactical decisions?
he can't even figure out a prisoner's dilemma. he'll be challenging putin to an arm wrestling contest.
"no, dmitri and sergei need to stay home. this is mano a mano. no 2 out of 3 bullshit, either. winner gets iran.".
dude shouldn't be running for president, he should be enrolling in a course in introductory game theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ati5L6gn4jI
are you taking notes, ted?
do you want this guy (cruz) making tactical decisions?
he can't even figure out a prisoner's dilemma. he'll be challenging putin to an arm wrestling contest.
"no, dmitri and sergei need to stay home. this is mano a mano. no 2 out of 3 bullshit, either. winner gets iran.".
dude shouldn't be running for president, he should be enrolling in a course in introductory game theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ati5L6gn4jI
j reacts to the democratic party nomination process (final analysis) (section 2)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/10/was_nixon_robbed.html
illinois results
clinton: 1017006 (51%)
sanders: 982017 (49%)
difference: 34989
cook county results
clinton: 617612 (54%)
sanders: 525000 (46%)
difference: 92612
rest of illinois results
clinton: 399394 (47%)
sanders: 457017 (53%)
difference: 57623
---
michigan results
clinton: 576795 (48%)
sanders: 595222 (50%)
difference: 18427
wayne county results
clinton: 163886 (60%)
sanders: 104999 (38%)
difference: 58887
rest of michigan results
clinton: 412909 (46%)
sanders: 490223 (54%)
difference: 77314
he overpowered it in michigan with brute force turnout, the only strategy possible, but couldn't in illinois.
the importance of stressing turnout to the sanders campaign should really be apparent.
illinois results
clinton: 1017006 (51%)
sanders: 982017 (49%)
difference: 34989
cook county results
clinton: 617612 (54%)
sanders: 525000 (46%)
difference: 92612
rest of illinois results
clinton: 399394 (47%)
sanders: 457017 (53%)
difference: 57623
---
michigan results
clinton: 576795 (48%)
sanders: 595222 (50%)
difference: 18427
wayne county results
clinton: 163886 (60%)
sanders: 104999 (38%)
difference: 58887
rest of michigan results
clinton: 412909 (46%)
sanders: 490223 (54%)
difference: 77314
he overpowered it in michigan with brute force turnout, the only strategy possible, but couldn't in illinois.
the importance of stressing turnout to the sanders campaign should really be apparent.
shit hillary said vol 4
“If there is a way to structure some kind of constitutional restrictions that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I am open to that, but I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area where if they included health, you could see constitutional action."
Saturday, March 19, 2016
j reacts to mechanization as being the process in which capitalism will destroy itself
and, what percentage of his customers does he suppose work in the service industry?
see, i'd be foolish to argue for the tremendous foresight of capital, though. just because it's stupid - from their own perspective - doesn't mean they won't do it. that's how we got into this mess in the first place.
let's be real about the choices. we can maintain the status quo, where people do shitty work for shitty wages while the bosses get rich. or, we can let the ceos destroy the economy through automation, then figure out how to deal with 40% unemployment caused by overwhelming automation. i have an idea about that, too: maybe we could take ownership of the machines in common. then, instead of some boss owning the productive capabilities and handing us out a wage, we could just set the machines in motion and enjoy being unemployed.
i know. that's crazy. what do you think, that it's a fifth of the way through the twenty-first century, or something? we'll have to wait until the future, after the year 2000, for something like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ9H5fIx0js
see, i'd be foolish to argue for the tremendous foresight of capital, though. just because it's stupid - from their own perspective - doesn't mean they won't do it. that's how we got into this mess in the first place.
let's be real about the choices. we can maintain the status quo, where people do shitty work for shitty wages while the bosses get rich. or, we can let the ceos destroy the economy through automation, then figure out how to deal with 40% unemployment caused by overwhelming automation. i have an idea about that, too: maybe we could take ownership of the machines in common. then, instead of some boss owning the productive capabilities and handing us out a wage, we could just set the machines in motion and enjoy being unemployed.
i know. that's crazy. what do you think, that it's a fifth of the way through the twenty-first century, or something? we'll have to wait until the future, after the year 2000, for something like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ9H5fIx0js
j reacts to the democratic party nomination process (final analysis) (section 1)
let's sum up what i think about the results.
media narrative: clinton managed to squeak through tough win after tough win by dominating the older, black vote.
smartass response: yeah. they're so old that they're DEAD!.
media narrative: what?
smartass response: hillary clinton has won the primary by dominating the dead, black people vote.
--
let's cut to sanders, he's having a press conference.
media narrative: what could you have done to better appeal to the african-american zombie vote?
sanders: well, i've still got a foot out of the grave, i guess. but, i don't think anybody was expecting the zombie apocalypse to be overly black.
media narrative: clinton managed to squeak through tough win after tough win by dominating the older, black vote.
smartass response: yeah. they're so old that they're DEAD!.
media narrative: what?
smartass response: hillary clinton has won the primary by dominating the dead, black people vote.
--
let's cut to sanders, he's having a press conference.
media narrative: what could you have done to better appeal to the african-american zombie vote?
sanders: well, i've still got a foot out of the grave, i guess. but, i don't think anybody was expecting the zombie apocalypse to be overly black.
j reacts to anonymous' attack on trump [the first truly orwellian election cycle]
i've got a great campaign slogan for hillary. and, get ready for this, because it's what we're about to be subjected to. this is the first truly orwellian election cycle.
VOTE HILLARY - SHE'S BETTER THAN FASCISM*
* note that hillary supports the tpp, global military intervention, mass deportations and strong restrictions on free speech.
if you think that hillary is going to stand up for anybody except her handlers, you are sadly mistaken.
VOTE HILLARY - SHE'S BETTER THAN FASCISM*
* note that hillary supports the tpp, global military intervention, mass deportations and strong restrictions on free speech.
if you think that hillary is going to stand up for anybody except her handlers, you are sadly mistaken.
j reacts to basic income as a part of maximizing freedom in a post-industrial economy
i'm bitchy about it sometimes, but i do love this country.
if we're post-industrial, now, this is the right way forward.
meanwhile, it looks like they're having an election about free trade in the united states.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/13/ontario-will-test-idea-of-a-guaranteed-minimum-income-to-ease-poverty_n_9451076.html
if we're post-industrial, now, this is the right way forward.
meanwhile, it looks like they're having an election about free trade in the united states.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/13/ontario-will-test-idea-of-a-guaranteed-minimum-income-to-ease-poverty_n_9451076.html
j reacts to the media giving hillary a free pass on being responsible for trump
this may be a dark and dangerous place to be, but i really want to push back very hard against the idea that we should be blaming it all on trump. here's the reality: a healthy society would be able to listen to what trump is saying and just shrug it off as a lot of nonsense. the questions we need to be asking ourselves and drawing attention to really have nothing to do with trump at all. they are:
(1) what are the economic factors that have led to this scenario, and who is responsible for them?
(2) what are the educational factors that have led to this scenario, and who is responsible for them?
(3) broadly, what are the cultural factors that have led to this scenario, and who is responsible for them?
when you just mindlessly blame it on trump, you're giving hillary a free pass - and upholding the status quo by avoiding substantive analysis.
that said? this is what we're going to see for the next eight months. the media is going to point at scenario after scenario that has been caused by the economic and social policies that clinton has supported, then suggest she's the antidote to it.
again: this is right out of orwell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEs6iCrymD0
(1) what are the economic factors that have led to this scenario, and who is responsible for them?
(2) what are the educational factors that have led to this scenario, and who is responsible for them?
(3) broadly, what are the cultural factors that have led to this scenario, and who is responsible for them?
when you just mindlessly blame it on trump, you're giving hillary a free pass - and upholding the status quo by avoiding substantive analysis.
that said? this is what we're going to see for the next eight months. the media is going to point at scenario after scenario that has been caused by the economic and social policies that clinton has supported, then suggest she's the antidote to it.
again: this is right out of orwell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEs6iCrymD0
something else i need to point out about trump v hillary, though:
hillary looks frighteningly like my maternal grandmother [i haven't looked into it, but i promise you that hillary has finnish-irish ancestry]. trump looks a lot like my maternal grandfather, which is where my screen name of 'murray' originates from. they were divorced, i believe, before i was born. but, it's like the fight between my maternal grandparents that i never saw. making it sort of creepy.
my nana is far more liberal than hillary, though.
fwiw, i am basically the same age as chelsea. but, my grandmother is only a couple of years older than hillary.
hillary looks frighteningly like my maternal grandmother [i haven't looked into it, but i promise you that hillary has finnish-irish ancestry]. trump looks a lot like my maternal grandfather, which is where my screen name of 'murray' originates from. they were divorced, i believe, before i was born. but, it's like the fight between my maternal grandparents that i never saw. making it sort of creepy.
my nana is far more liberal than hillary, though.
fwiw, i am basically the same age as chelsea. but, my grandmother is only a couple of years older than hillary.
shit hillary said vol 3
“There can be restrictions in the very end of the third trimester, but they have to take into account the life and health of the mother.”
j reacts to the republicans failing a prisoner dilemma on trump (as surface analysis)
"The longer Kasich stays in the race, the more it benefits Donald Trump," - ted cruz
see, if you had any doubt that this guy is an idiot....
ted. listen. if marco hadn't dropped out, he would have probably beat you in new york. and in new jersey. connecticut, as well. and in many other places, too. there are states on the calendar that you have absolutely no chance of winning.
what kasich does in these states is take trump down from 75% to 50%, or maybe a little lower.
the fact that kasich is splitting the anti-cruz vote is just about the only thing that cruz has going for him at all, at this point. even with that said, i don't really see anywhere where he can split enough of the vote to let cruz win. it's even a stretch in the rust belt (where cruz may very well poll third, and be ranked third by most kasich supporters).
it's bad enough that trump got a 5% bump from rubio dropping. at least kasich should be able to prevent him from clinching.
if kasich drops, at least half of his support will move to trump and trump will sweep the remaining contests. well, maybe cruz can win in wyoming or something, but the outcome will no longer be in doubt.
but, the republican establishment is not very smart. i said this a few days ago. can they win a prisoner's dilemma? cruz is failing over and over again, which is not surprising. he's a dolt. but, i really hope kasich understands the math well enough to know that dropping out is handing it to trump.
see, if you had any doubt that this guy is an idiot....
ted. listen. if marco hadn't dropped out, he would have probably beat you in new york. and in new jersey. connecticut, as well. and in many other places, too. there are states on the calendar that you have absolutely no chance of winning.
what kasich does in these states is take trump down from 75% to 50%, or maybe a little lower.
the fact that kasich is splitting the anti-cruz vote is just about the only thing that cruz has going for him at all, at this point. even with that said, i don't really see anywhere where he can split enough of the vote to let cruz win. it's even a stretch in the rust belt (where cruz may very well poll third, and be ranked third by most kasich supporters).
it's bad enough that trump got a 5% bump from rubio dropping. at least kasich should be able to prevent him from clinching.
if kasich drops, at least half of his support will move to trump and trump will sweep the remaining contests. well, maybe cruz can win in wyoming or something, but the outcome will no longer be in doubt.
but, the republican establishment is not very smart. i said this a few days ago. can they win a prisoner's dilemma? cruz is failing over and over again, which is not surprising. he's a dolt. but, i really hope kasich understands the math well enough to know that dropping out is handing it to trump.
videos not eligible for monetization (too edgy for ads)
i didn't post this here, either.
they seem to be really cracking down on my foreign policy perspectives. it's really pretty standard chomsky-lite, it's just that i'm....well, they wouldn't be going after me if i wasn't on to something, right?
you hear a lot of nonsense on these topics thrown around. propaganda. disinformation. counter-propaganda. it takes a combination of intelligence and education to get it right.
*this* is what they're actively trying to shut down - what they *actually* don't want you to hear.
they seem to be really cracking down on my foreign policy perspectives. it's really pretty standard chomsky-lite, it's just that i'm....well, they wouldn't be going after me if i wasn't on to something, right?
you hear a lot of nonsense on these topics thrown around. propaganda. disinformation. counter-propaganda. it takes a combination of intelligence and education to get it right.
*this* is what they're actively trying to shut down - what they *actually* don't want you to hear.
claims to be opposed to fascism. votes for tpp-loving, carpet-bomb glorifying, anti-speech crusader hillary clinton.
La Berlinoise
nope. we vote bernie. bye felicia
jessica
+La Berlinoise
this is a setup. we're walking into an orwellian reality, where a fascist system is manufacturing consent of it's fascist policies by working people up against a paper strawman.
trump is an idiot. but, to claim that he is a fascist would suggest that he has an ideology, and that would be giving him too much credit.
the only fascist running in this election is hillary clinton.
the proper activist choice is to avoid co-operation by not voting. if the choice is hillary v trump, and the narrative is to vote for clinton to stop fascism, the only meaningful message you can send is that you refuse to take part in the charade.
and, that's all it is - a charade.
i'm a data analyst, and i want you to understand what i'm about to type. the only thing that bernie can accomplish within the democratic party over the next few months is to generate enough data to prove that the nomination process is rigged. i actually think he's already done this. i do hope that he runs as an independent, but, given the narrative that's developing, i'm not sure the process is going to be any more honest.
La Berlinoise
nope. we vote bernie. bye felicia
jessica
+La Berlinoise
this is a setup. we're walking into an orwellian reality, where a fascist system is manufacturing consent of it's fascist policies by working people up against a paper strawman.
trump is an idiot. but, to claim that he is a fascist would suggest that he has an ideology, and that would be giving him too much credit.
the only fascist running in this election is hillary clinton.
the proper activist choice is to avoid co-operation by not voting. if the choice is hillary v trump, and the narrative is to vote for clinton to stop fascism, the only meaningful message you can send is that you refuse to take part in the charade.
and, that's all it is - a charade.
i'm a data analyst, and i want you to understand what i'm about to type. the only thing that bernie can accomplish within the democratic party over the next few months is to generate enough data to prove that the nomination process is rigged. i actually think he's already done this. i do hope that he runs as an independent, but, given the narrative that's developing, i'm not sure the process is going to be any more honest.
Friday, March 18, 2016
j reacts to obama's judicial pick proving that obvious conservative is obvious
all the mental gymnastics about the supreme court nominee are out.
listen. he picked a middle-of-the-road right-leaning democrat because he is a middle-of-the-road right-leaning democrat. he has never at any point claimed to be the progressive that some have. he's on record calling himself a conservative over and over. you can look this up. it's in the public record.
and, he's consistent. this exchange exists, in multiple sources.
media: the right is claiming you're some kind of socialist.
obama: that's ridiculous. i'm a conservative.
i'm a conservative.
it's not some kind of conspiracy theory. it's right in front of you. it always has been. you were just blind to it for some inexplicable reason. in fact, it's probably the reason he beat clinton in the nomination. and, considering that he won states like virginia and north carolina, it's also probably the reason he got elected.
but, the media narrative is immutable. it has been for years.
i remember watching a whit house press conference about a year ago where the media was nailing pretty-boy josh (that's meant to be purely descriptive, and as a consequence of not wanting to open a tab to google his last name) about obama being lax on illegal immigration. the entire exchange existed in a total fantasy reality. obama has deported more people than anybody else. if you look into this, you'd be appalled. but, the media has it's set of talking points and no amount of evidence or shift in policy can ever change them. the media is stuck in 1985, and it's unclear what will get them out.
so, just stop with the nonsense, ok? his supreme court nominee is not reflective of some elaborate game plan that will see fruition thirty years from now, or something. it is reflective of obama's political positions.
and, you've got less than a year to get your head around it before he's come and gone without cluing in.
listen. he picked a middle-of-the-road right-leaning democrat because he is a middle-of-the-road right-leaning democrat. he has never at any point claimed to be the progressive that some have. he's on record calling himself a conservative over and over. you can look this up. it's in the public record.
and, he's consistent. this exchange exists, in multiple sources.
media: the right is claiming you're some kind of socialist.
obama: that's ridiculous. i'm a conservative.
i'm a conservative.
it's not some kind of conspiracy theory. it's right in front of you. it always has been. you were just blind to it for some inexplicable reason. in fact, it's probably the reason he beat clinton in the nomination. and, considering that he won states like virginia and north carolina, it's also probably the reason he got elected.
but, the media narrative is immutable. it has been for years.
i remember watching a whit house press conference about a year ago where the media was nailing pretty-boy josh (that's meant to be purely descriptive, and as a consequence of not wanting to open a tab to google his last name) about obama being lax on illegal immigration. the entire exchange existed in a total fantasy reality. obama has deported more people than anybody else. if you look into this, you'd be appalled. but, the media has it's set of talking points and no amount of evidence or shift in policy can ever change them. the media is stuck in 1985, and it's unclear what will get them out.
so, just stop with the nonsense, ok? his supreme court nominee is not reflective of some elaborate game plan that will see fruition thirty years from now, or something. it is reflective of obama's political positions.
and, you've got less than a year to get your head around it before he's come and gone without cluing in.
shit hillary said vol 2
"We have to send a clear message: just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay."
Thursday, March 17, 2016
j reacts to arizona pre-polling
the arizona poll released yesterday introduced a new dynamic: 25% undecided.
i generally tend to interpret undecided voters as undecided voters and rub up against the idea that they will distribute nicely in the end. and, in this circumstance - sanders v. clinton - you'd think that undecided should benefit sanders (although it didn't work out that way in ohio).
on the one hand, these are not good numbers for sanders. on the other hand, they're not catastrophic - because of that large undecided group.
but, this isn't what sanders wants to see. a lack of momentum and a lack of exposure (are there televised debates this week? town halls? i haven't seen any.) make this a different circumstance than last week.
i mean, let's be clear, here: i argued that all the factors leading up to the 15th were going to be in sanders' favour, and they clearly were. he split illinois. a week previous, the polling had him thirty points down. he clearly got a huge bump. and, the truth is that i really should have spoken more carefully. i shouldn't have said he will win; i should have said that if turnout is high then he will win. and, if turnout was higher than he would have won! i got a little carried away by rhetoric. but, the analysis was actually spot on if you can see through that.
none of that holds, here. i don't see any particular reason to think that sanders ought to make up this spread over the next five days.
so, if you look back, you'll see that i initially reacted badly to michigan pre-polling - and then modified my prediction to something closer as more results came in. i am going to need to see some more polling before i post a negative prediction. but, i don't see any reason to suspect that the situation will repeat itself.
there's a lot of reasons to suggest that he can do well in both tuscon and phoenix. but, right now, this looks bad - even while acknowledging that we'll need more data before we should start freaking out.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2016/03/new-arizona-poll-trump-clinton-lead-but-ample.html
i generally tend to interpret undecided voters as undecided voters and rub up against the idea that they will distribute nicely in the end. and, in this circumstance - sanders v. clinton - you'd think that undecided should benefit sanders (although it didn't work out that way in ohio).
on the one hand, these are not good numbers for sanders. on the other hand, they're not catastrophic - because of that large undecided group.
but, this isn't what sanders wants to see. a lack of momentum and a lack of exposure (are there televised debates this week? town halls? i haven't seen any.) make this a different circumstance than last week.
i mean, let's be clear, here: i argued that all the factors leading up to the 15th were going to be in sanders' favour, and they clearly were. he split illinois. a week previous, the polling had him thirty points down. he clearly got a huge bump. and, the truth is that i really should have spoken more carefully. i shouldn't have said he will win; i should have said that if turnout is high then he will win. and, if turnout was higher than he would have won! i got a little carried away by rhetoric. but, the analysis was actually spot on if you can see through that.
none of that holds, here. i don't see any particular reason to think that sanders ought to make up this spread over the next five days.
so, if you look back, you'll see that i initially reacted badly to michigan pre-polling - and then modified my prediction to something closer as more results came in. i am going to need to see some more polling before i post a negative prediction. but, i don't see any reason to suspect that the situation will repeat itself.
there's a lot of reasons to suggest that he can do well in both tuscon and phoenix. but, right now, this looks bad - even while acknowledging that we'll need more data before we should start freaking out.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2016/03/new-arizona-poll-trump-clinton-lead-but-ample.html
j reacts to questions about sanders' path to the nomination
i'm going to get this out of the way. very preliminary. all analyses are subject to adjustments as a consequence of polling. these are first impressions, really.
mar 22
arizona: arizona, i'd suspect, is the liberal flip side to nevada - roughly similar, but leaning more in his favour due to more progressive bases. tuscon and phoenix are both something like austin, and there isn't really a big base of right-leaning democrats like there is in texas. so, you'd be looking at roughly purple state demographics, with a slight boost for bernie. arizona is a melting pot of sorts - being torn in various directions. so, he can win it, but again you're looking at the factor being turnout - low turnout and it's nevada, big turnout and it's colorado.
idaho: you can't rig a caucus. i don't see any reason to think it would be different than the other western caucus states.
utah: utah is weird. no, it actually is due to the mormon vote. even non-mormons are still living in what is a broadly mormon society. utah is almost like a different country. there's a lot of reasons to think that utah would react very badly to hillary clinton, but it's not clear that they'd react well to bernie sanders. they got over obama being black in 2008. to me, that suggests that they can get over sanders being a jew in 2016. but, utah is also the kind of state that would have done it's homework and actually known that obama was to the right of clinton. i think that sanders being a bit more libertarian, even if he's less conservative, is probably important in utah. some polls would help regarding margins.
he should be aiming to make up at least fifty delegates on mar 22nd.
mar 26th
alaska/hawaii - these are caucuses, but i don't have any reason to suggest that sanders has a real advantage in alaska. clinton actually seems to do better outside of the lower 48, where the politics might be a little distant and the issue may already be the general. i'm going to bristle a little on the assumption that he's favoured in these states.
washington - washington is very, very liberal. it's practically canada. he needs a big win here. 70%+ would be great. it's the kind of bump that could save him. and, if he just squeezes out a tie, it's a death blow. i think he should be the clear favourite here, but some polling would be nice.
assuming that alaska & hawaii roughly split, which is conservative, he needs to aim for at least a 40 delegate gain in washington.
put together, he should be aiming to have made up 100 delegates by march 26th, cutting the lead to about 215 - which is what it was on mar 14th.
apr 5
is wisconsin more like minnesota or more like illinois? let's split the difference. let's say he aims for 55%. again - if he's fighting her to a draw in wisconsin, he's not pulling people out - or she's stuffing to a point that can't be overturned. he should be aiming for more like 60%. but, it's going to roughly split. he needs to win, at least.
apr 9th
wyoming is another one of these caucuses that you can't rig and all evidence does point in his favour - although i again would like some polls.
the goal for after april 9th needs to be that the difference is under 200. whatever the results in wyoming are, that's what needs to be the takeaway for the situation to remain competitive.
apr 19
new york. he has to be aiming for fifty delegates in new york. that means his goal in new york is 60%. he split massachusetts. he split illinois. the idea that he can do this is perhaps bordering on the realm of fantasy. some polling would of course help!
of course, if he gets 57% or something then you can start tweaking. and, if he gets 80% in washington (or wins hawaii huge) then he has some extra space. but his goal coming out of new york needs to be a delegate difference that is less than 150. and the percentage he should be aiming for to get him the boost at the end is really 60%. if he fights her to a draw, it's going to be the same lack of enthusiasm that kicked in last night.
apr 26
connecticut & RI : i think the question is whether connecticut is more like massachusetts or more like new york. i don't think it's much like vermont or much like new hampshire. but, if he wins 60%? the reality is that this is less than 20 delegates. whether he gets 55% or 60% is really not important. he can even split them, really. he just can't lose them.
delaware/pennsylvania/maryland: my understanding is that these states almost always vote together, and that they're pretty comprehensively blue. i know that the conventional analyses will argue that maryland should be favoured for clinton due to race, but i think the results up to this point have actually completely debunked this. i would expect maryland to follow the same trends as the states to it's direct north - because it always has before. the racial breakdown has never mattered previously and should not matter now.
so, the key is pennsylvania. pennsylvania is the liberal image to ohio. where ohio is the northern tip of the southeast, pennsylvania is the southern tip of the northeast. that means that you want to give sanders a really strong chance in pennsylvania. but, that you also need to tone it done just a tad.
clinton won ohio with around 55%. i think sanders could win the pennsylvania-maryland-delaware megastate with about 55%. maryland may actually be a little kinder to sanders than pennsylvania because it's a little more liberal. but, when you work it out? if he wins those three states by 55% each, it's only +40 delegates.
combined with connecticut & RI, he wants to be walking out of april 26th with the difference very close to 100. so, he wants to make up around 50 on the 26th. i want to say less than 100. but, then the sky will fall if it's 110. around 100 is good enough.
the schedule actually shifts again in may.
may 3
clinton should be favoured in indiana. he has to hope for a split. if he can come in with it a little under 100, he might walk out with it a little over 100. it's very hard to see how he can win indiana.
may 10
she should be favoured in west virginia as well. thankfully, it's only 37 delegates. he'll be lucky to keep her under 60. but it's only a few delegates, either way - so long as he doesn't get wiped. i frankly couldn't imagine much that could be less likely than a socialist jew winning in west virginia. i hope he brings some serious security with him. so, we want to hope it's under 120 at this point.
may 17
she will likely get around 65% in kentucky and he will likely get around 65% in oregon. oregon's a little bigger, but it's basically a delegate split. we're still looking at a difference of about 100-120 or so - hopefully.
june 5
i skipped guam a little earlier. it's 12 delegates. she'll probably win a few. but, when you combine guam, puerto rico and virgin islands you have 99 delegates. and, i'd have to think she's favoured in all of these places.
unfortunately, that puts us back up to 150 as a targeted delegate difference and gives her momentum going into june 7th.
june 7th
he has to win over a hundred delegates in california, and hobble together the rest.
so, as was stated: it was always about california!
mar 22
arizona: arizona, i'd suspect, is the liberal flip side to nevada - roughly similar, but leaning more in his favour due to more progressive bases. tuscon and phoenix are both something like austin, and there isn't really a big base of right-leaning democrats like there is in texas. so, you'd be looking at roughly purple state demographics, with a slight boost for bernie. arizona is a melting pot of sorts - being torn in various directions. so, he can win it, but again you're looking at the factor being turnout - low turnout and it's nevada, big turnout and it's colorado.
idaho: you can't rig a caucus. i don't see any reason to think it would be different than the other western caucus states.
utah: utah is weird. no, it actually is due to the mormon vote. even non-mormons are still living in what is a broadly mormon society. utah is almost like a different country. there's a lot of reasons to think that utah would react very badly to hillary clinton, but it's not clear that they'd react well to bernie sanders. they got over obama being black in 2008. to me, that suggests that they can get over sanders being a jew in 2016. but, utah is also the kind of state that would have done it's homework and actually known that obama was to the right of clinton. i think that sanders being a bit more libertarian, even if he's less conservative, is probably important in utah. some polls would help regarding margins.
he should be aiming to make up at least fifty delegates on mar 22nd.
mar 26th
alaska/hawaii - these are caucuses, but i don't have any reason to suggest that sanders has a real advantage in alaska. clinton actually seems to do better outside of the lower 48, where the politics might be a little distant and the issue may already be the general. i'm going to bristle a little on the assumption that he's favoured in these states.
washington - washington is very, very liberal. it's practically canada. he needs a big win here. 70%+ would be great. it's the kind of bump that could save him. and, if he just squeezes out a tie, it's a death blow. i think he should be the clear favourite here, but some polling would be nice.
assuming that alaska & hawaii roughly split, which is conservative, he needs to aim for at least a 40 delegate gain in washington.
put together, he should be aiming to have made up 100 delegates by march 26th, cutting the lead to about 215 - which is what it was on mar 14th.
apr 5
is wisconsin more like minnesota or more like illinois? let's split the difference. let's say he aims for 55%. again - if he's fighting her to a draw in wisconsin, he's not pulling people out - or she's stuffing to a point that can't be overturned. he should be aiming for more like 60%. but, it's going to roughly split. he needs to win, at least.
apr 9th
wyoming is another one of these caucuses that you can't rig and all evidence does point in his favour - although i again would like some polls.
the goal for after april 9th needs to be that the difference is under 200. whatever the results in wyoming are, that's what needs to be the takeaway for the situation to remain competitive.
apr 19
new york. he has to be aiming for fifty delegates in new york. that means his goal in new york is 60%. he split massachusetts. he split illinois. the idea that he can do this is perhaps bordering on the realm of fantasy. some polling would of course help!
of course, if he gets 57% or something then you can start tweaking. and, if he gets 80% in washington (or wins hawaii huge) then he has some extra space. but his goal coming out of new york needs to be a delegate difference that is less than 150. and the percentage he should be aiming for to get him the boost at the end is really 60%. if he fights her to a draw, it's going to be the same lack of enthusiasm that kicked in last night.
apr 26
connecticut & RI : i think the question is whether connecticut is more like massachusetts or more like new york. i don't think it's much like vermont or much like new hampshire. but, if he wins 60%? the reality is that this is less than 20 delegates. whether he gets 55% or 60% is really not important. he can even split them, really. he just can't lose them.
delaware/pennsylvania/maryland: my understanding is that these states almost always vote together, and that they're pretty comprehensively blue. i know that the conventional analyses will argue that maryland should be favoured for clinton due to race, but i think the results up to this point have actually completely debunked this. i would expect maryland to follow the same trends as the states to it's direct north - because it always has before. the racial breakdown has never mattered previously and should not matter now.
so, the key is pennsylvania. pennsylvania is the liberal image to ohio. where ohio is the northern tip of the southeast, pennsylvania is the southern tip of the northeast. that means that you want to give sanders a really strong chance in pennsylvania. but, that you also need to tone it done just a tad.
clinton won ohio with around 55%. i think sanders could win the pennsylvania-maryland-delaware megastate with about 55%. maryland may actually be a little kinder to sanders than pennsylvania because it's a little more liberal. but, when you work it out? if he wins those three states by 55% each, it's only +40 delegates.
combined with connecticut & RI, he wants to be walking out of april 26th with the difference very close to 100. so, he wants to make up around 50 on the 26th. i want to say less than 100. but, then the sky will fall if it's 110. around 100 is good enough.
the schedule actually shifts again in may.
may 3
clinton should be favoured in indiana. he has to hope for a split. if he can come in with it a little under 100, he might walk out with it a little over 100. it's very hard to see how he can win indiana.
may 10
she should be favoured in west virginia as well. thankfully, it's only 37 delegates. he'll be lucky to keep her under 60. but it's only a few delegates, either way - so long as he doesn't get wiped. i frankly couldn't imagine much that could be less likely than a socialist jew winning in west virginia. i hope he brings some serious security with him. so, we want to hope it's under 120 at this point.
may 17
she will likely get around 65% in kentucky and he will likely get around 65% in oregon. oregon's a little bigger, but it's basically a delegate split. we're still looking at a difference of about 100-120 or so - hopefully.
june 5
i skipped guam a little earlier. it's 12 delegates. she'll probably win a few. but, when you combine guam, puerto rico and virgin islands you have 99 delegates. and, i'd have to think she's favoured in all of these places.
unfortunately, that puts us back up to 150 as a targeted delegate difference and gives her momentum going into june 7th.
june 7th
he has to win over a hundred delegates in california, and hobble together the rest.
so, as was stated: it was always about california!
shit hillary said vol 1
“We realist Democrats understand that collateral damage is an unavoidable by-product of the War on Terror, and me being a mother, grandmother and tireless children’s rights advocate does not mean that I will flinch even one iota in allowing Israel to obliterate every last school-cum-rocket launching pad in Gaza. Those who allow their children to be used as human shields for terrorists deserve to see them buried under one-ton bombs.”
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
things hillary actually said
like the page to get a not-so-inspiring clinton quote once a day...
i'll be updating this once a day until november, or she drops out - whichever happens first.
https://www.facebook.com/thingshillarysaid/timeline
i'll be updating this once a day until november, or she drops out - whichever happens first.
https://www.facebook.com/thingshillarysaid/timeline
j reacts to the reports of sanders' death (being mildly exaggerated)
i'm sounding schizophrenic again, no doubt.
it doesn't change the math. it's rigged. i'm disengaging. zig-zagging, sure. but, is there a contradiction in there anywhere?
it doesn't change the delegate math. it does change the likelihood a little. i mean, if hillary gets arrested tomorrow, things change, right - i'll base whatever i continue to rant out on existing polls. but, projections of future successes need to be made on analyses of past ones. again: ohio was never serious. but, it's hard to see how he gets 60-65% in new york when he got 49% in illinois. yes: he always had to get 60-65% in new york, so what he needs to do hasn't changed. but, that's a big gap in votes over states that ought to vote similarly.
so, there's articles floating around claiming the lead is too big or the math has fundamentally altered - that it's too late, and that's it. that's inaccurate. the race has not meaningfully changed in any way. he still needs to do exactly what he already needed to do. it's just the question of whether it can be done or not that's become a little more in focus, and it's a little deflating.
but, despite my reactions, the truth is that his chances of winning are not different today than they were yesterday, and he still needs you to get out and vote in order for him to win. it's just that you have to do it. will you actually do it?
it's more that i've lost faith in you.
it doesn't change the math. it's rigged. i'm disengaging. zig-zagging, sure. but, is there a contradiction in there anywhere?
it doesn't change the delegate math. it does change the likelihood a little. i mean, if hillary gets arrested tomorrow, things change, right - i'll base whatever i continue to rant out on existing polls. but, projections of future successes need to be made on analyses of past ones. again: ohio was never serious. but, it's hard to see how he gets 60-65% in new york when he got 49% in illinois. yes: he always had to get 60-65% in new york, so what he needs to do hasn't changed. but, that's a big gap in votes over states that ought to vote similarly.
so, there's articles floating around claiming the lead is too big or the math has fundamentally altered - that it's too late, and that's it. that's inaccurate. the race has not meaningfully changed in any way. he still needs to do exactly what he already needed to do. it's just the question of whether it can be done or not that's become a little more in focus, and it's a little deflating.
but, despite my reactions, the truth is that his chances of winning are not different today than they were yesterday, and he still needs you to get out and vote in order for him to win. it's just that you have to do it. will you actually do it?
it's more that i've lost faith in you.
j reacts to hillary as liberal culture war general (as benedict arnold?)
hey, just a reminder: hillary clinton is not a pro-choice candidate.
she is on record, many times, over many years, as stating that she will put restrictions on access to abortion.
so, you might want to tone down the identity politics a little and take a closer look at what you're actually buying. you may be disappointed in what it actually is.
in fact, most of the reasons you might think you want to vote for her (out of fear) will not hold up to any real scrutiny on your behalf, if you bother to take the time to look into it.
she's not particularly keen on the gay, either, in fact.
nor does she particularly like black people. and i could rant for some time. but, hey. if you don't know this yet, what's the point....
if that's what this is being reduced to - identity politics, culture wars - i would really advise liberals to take a closer look at what they're supporting, whether actively or to stop the boogeyman. because she's actually not on your side of the culture wars. at all.
how about that support for capital punishment, too? geez, what a bleeding heart, huh?
trump wants to ban muslims from entering the country.
hillary wants to carpet bomb them in their own countries, then brag about there not being any military casualties.
you think hillary is less racist, somehow? amazing. you should get some kind of award for that.
she also supports mass deportations of illegal immigrants, btw.
you sure this is your horse in the culture war?
she is on record, many times, over many years, as stating that she will put restrictions on access to abortion.
so, you might want to tone down the identity politics a little and take a closer look at what you're actually buying. you may be disappointed in what it actually is.
in fact, most of the reasons you might think you want to vote for her (out of fear) will not hold up to any real scrutiny on your behalf, if you bother to take the time to look into it.
she's not particularly keen on the gay, either, in fact.
nor does she particularly like black people. and i could rant for some time. but, hey. if you don't know this yet, what's the point....
if that's what this is being reduced to - identity politics, culture wars - i would really advise liberals to take a closer look at what they're supporting, whether actively or to stop the boogeyman. because she's actually not on your side of the culture wars. at all.
how about that support for capital punishment, too? geez, what a bleeding heart, huh?
trump wants to ban muslims from entering the country.
hillary wants to carpet bomb them in their own countries, then brag about there not being any military casualties.
you think hillary is less racist, somehow? amazing. you should get some kind of award for that.
she also supports mass deportations of illegal immigrants, btw.
you sure this is your horse in the culture war?
j reacts to the orwellian narrative developing in trump v clinton
so, it's becoming more clear what the narrative is setting itself up as.
trump is being set up as the villain. you need to vote away your rights to stop trump. the tpp might reduce you to a slave, but you'll vote for it because trump is scary. the security state is expanding, but you'll vote for it because trump said something mean about gay people.
they're ramping this up. and i just don't have time for it. but, if you were paying attention to what clinton did as secretary, this shouldn't be surprising. in fact, this kind of narrative is what you're going to get for the next eight years. it's all about distracting you with something scary to continue the slow enslavement of america. and, you'll be happy in your slavery, too.
the only way out is to not vote. i need to reiterate it. but, you have to see the situation for what it is, first.
trump is playing the role of the villain. clinton is here to save us. you need to make that deal with the devil, that hobbesian bargain, to sell yourself away for your own safety. it's all theatre. and you fall for it at your own peril.
--
in your rush to "stop fascism", you're going to elect a woman that all educated people realize is a fascist in waiting. veni, vidi, vici!. and, hey: you can count on her to get the trains to run on time. truly.
we're a little over thirty years late. but there it is. right out of orwell.
i'm voting for hillary clinton to stop fascism.
look at how absurd that statement is.
somebody meme this....
but, like i say: i'm tuning out. you might get the odd wry comment from me. the disinterested, sardonic observer. but, i have no attachment to this.
trump is being set up as the villain. you need to vote away your rights to stop trump. the tpp might reduce you to a slave, but you'll vote for it because trump is scary. the security state is expanding, but you'll vote for it because trump said something mean about gay people.
they're ramping this up. and i just don't have time for it. but, if you were paying attention to what clinton did as secretary, this shouldn't be surprising. in fact, this kind of narrative is what you're going to get for the next eight years. it's all about distracting you with something scary to continue the slow enslavement of america. and, you'll be happy in your slavery, too.
the only way out is to not vote. i need to reiterate it. but, you have to see the situation for what it is, first.
trump is playing the role of the villain. clinton is here to save us. you need to make that deal with the devil, that hobbesian bargain, to sell yourself away for your own safety. it's all theatre. and you fall for it at your own peril.
--
in your rush to "stop fascism", you're going to elect a woman that all educated people realize is a fascist in waiting. veni, vidi, vici!. and, hey: you can count on her to get the trains to run on time. truly.
we're a little over thirty years late. but there it is. right out of orwell.
i'm voting for hillary clinton to stop fascism.
look at how absurd that statement is.
somebody meme this....
but, like i say: i'm tuning out. you might get the odd wry comment from me. the disinterested, sardonic observer. but, i have no attachment to this.
15-03-2016: super tuesday II reactions & analysis, while editing
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
j reacts to trump v clinton a second time, from a distinctly canadian perspective
i'm going to re-articulate myself mildly.
if i was an american, i would probably weigh things differently. i may not like clinton very much. i might be to her left on 19/20 issues - and consequently disagree with virtually everything she believes in. but, if i lived in a swing state, i'd probably drag myself out and force myself to vote for her.
probably.
i'd be voting against her opponent, not in favour of her.
what i've meant to say is that, as a canadian, whether trump or clinton wins is of little consequence to me. but, trump may be mildly preferable. let me restate my reasons.
1) trump may be less imperialist than clinton. we can state with certainty that clinton is an imperialist, neo-con interventionist. it is less clear where trump stands, but there is reason to think he may believe that it's all a waste of money.
2) trump may be better on trade. hillary is very obviously in support of the tpp [regardless of what she says]. trump may act to tear these agreements up.
maybe i should expand a little on this.
before nafta, there was something called the fta. it was just canada and the united states. then this was expanded to include mexico and that was nafta.
my position on free trade is very similar to that of the canadian liberal party. they supported the idea of free trade with the united states, but opposed the fta; it was the conservatives that put the deal through. i would also support the idea of free trade with mexico, but only under the condition that they pass more strenuous labour laws. see, that's the real problem. it's not that trade exists. it's that companies have a way out of adhering to labour laws - they just need to move to mexico. the currency thing is also a factor, but if the mexican state would catch up on regulations then most of the problems would resolve themselves very quickly. and, why aren't they? because the mexican state is horribly corrupt.
so, i would like to see nafta dissolved until mexico can get it's labour laws up to par. this is the same kind of process that the eu uses around it's member states. and, let the other central american states in, too, if they want.
i would argue, though, that dissolving nafta does not dissolve the fta - even if it needs a little work, too, to be actual free trade and not just investors rights.
so, that means i support free trade between the united states and canada, but oppose nafta [until mexico pulls itself up].
i would have similar views on the tpp - although i would support an open trade agreement between the united states, canada, australia, new zealand and japan. i'd support free trade with europe, and large amounts of south america. it's just a question of whether the labour laws are up to par or not.
clinton may claim she sort of agrees. we all know she doesn't. trump may have different logic, but he gets to the same point as i do. he is to her left on this issue.
3) health care. as a canadian, my prerogative is that you adopt a single-payer health care system. obamacare is of no benefit to the maintenance of my country's system - it is just the continuation of the status quo of a huge corrupt market on the border. i would like to see you abolish the market. the easiest way to do this is universal coverage over single-payer, but it's the abolition of the market that i'm concerned with.
hillary is not in favour of abolishing this market. trump is less clear. but, obamacare is a huge obstacle in abolishing the market, because people have come to accept it as a compromise. so, any step to abolish obamacare is within my best interests, as a canadian liberal that supports single payer and sees the american system as a perpetual threat to it.
4) the dollar. this is a bit sneaky. i think trump may crash the dollar. and, that benefits me in a lot of ways, as well.
so, again: i'm not endorsing trump. i'm not arguing you'd be better off under trump. i'm just pointing out that i need to disengage. as a canadian anti-war leftist, i simply don't think that taking a pro-clinton position is in my self-interest.
--
i should also remind some middle of the road political "moderates" or perhaps people under thirty - that free trade is not a minor concern on the left. it was the central focus of the left throughout the 90s, culminating in major protests in seattle, quebec city and other places. the alter-globalization movement fizzled out after 9/11 under the effects of police state powers passed to "protect us from terrorists". but, the issue has never lost importance to leftists.
it's not just another thing in the list. it's the single, biggest issue - outside of putting an end to the wars created by 9/11.
this might be something bernie doesn't realize. he might want to do some polling; he may be shocked to find out that only a small percentage of his backers have any interest in getting tough on wall street at all.
frankly, the whole wall street spiel is actually pretty much my biggest disagreement with him. i would support reinstating glass-steagall. but, i think a lender of last resort is pretty important. and, i know that the so-called bailouts are actually loans.
but, i'll happily put that nonsense aside to talk about his broader prescriptions. and, the stance on trade is absolutely central. i may be giving away that it's so fundamentally important that i'd consider supporting the republicans over it - if i really believed they'd act to break it up.
if i was an american, i would probably weigh things differently. i may not like clinton very much. i might be to her left on 19/20 issues - and consequently disagree with virtually everything she believes in. but, if i lived in a swing state, i'd probably drag myself out and force myself to vote for her.
probably.
i'd be voting against her opponent, not in favour of her.
what i've meant to say is that, as a canadian, whether trump or clinton wins is of little consequence to me. but, trump may be mildly preferable. let me restate my reasons.
1) trump may be less imperialist than clinton. we can state with certainty that clinton is an imperialist, neo-con interventionist. it is less clear where trump stands, but there is reason to think he may believe that it's all a waste of money.
2) trump may be better on trade. hillary is very obviously in support of the tpp [regardless of what she says]. trump may act to tear these agreements up.
maybe i should expand a little on this.
before nafta, there was something called the fta. it was just canada and the united states. then this was expanded to include mexico and that was nafta.
my position on free trade is very similar to that of the canadian liberal party. they supported the idea of free trade with the united states, but opposed the fta; it was the conservatives that put the deal through. i would also support the idea of free trade with mexico, but only under the condition that they pass more strenuous labour laws. see, that's the real problem. it's not that trade exists. it's that companies have a way out of adhering to labour laws - they just need to move to mexico. the currency thing is also a factor, but if the mexican state would catch up on regulations then most of the problems would resolve themselves very quickly. and, why aren't they? because the mexican state is horribly corrupt.
so, i would like to see nafta dissolved until mexico can get it's labour laws up to par. this is the same kind of process that the eu uses around it's member states. and, let the other central american states in, too, if they want.
i would argue, though, that dissolving nafta does not dissolve the fta - even if it needs a little work, too, to be actual free trade and not just investors rights.
so, that means i support free trade between the united states and canada, but oppose nafta [until mexico pulls itself up].
i would have similar views on the tpp - although i would support an open trade agreement between the united states, canada, australia, new zealand and japan. i'd support free trade with europe, and large amounts of south america. it's just a question of whether the labour laws are up to par or not.
clinton may claim she sort of agrees. we all know she doesn't. trump may have different logic, but he gets to the same point as i do. he is to her left on this issue.
3) health care. as a canadian, my prerogative is that you adopt a single-payer health care system. obamacare is of no benefit to the maintenance of my country's system - it is just the continuation of the status quo of a huge corrupt market on the border. i would like to see you abolish the market. the easiest way to do this is universal coverage over single-payer, but it's the abolition of the market that i'm concerned with.
hillary is not in favour of abolishing this market. trump is less clear. but, obamacare is a huge obstacle in abolishing the market, because people have come to accept it as a compromise. so, any step to abolish obamacare is within my best interests, as a canadian liberal that supports single payer and sees the american system as a perpetual threat to it.
4) the dollar. this is a bit sneaky. i think trump may crash the dollar. and, that benefits me in a lot of ways, as well.
so, again: i'm not endorsing trump. i'm not arguing you'd be better off under trump. i'm just pointing out that i need to disengage. as a canadian anti-war leftist, i simply don't think that taking a pro-clinton position is in my self-interest.
--
i should also remind some middle of the road political "moderates" or perhaps people under thirty - that free trade is not a minor concern on the left. it was the central focus of the left throughout the 90s, culminating in major protests in seattle, quebec city and other places. the alter-globalization movement fizzled out after 9/11 under the effects of police state powers passed to "protect us from terrorists". but, the issue has never lost importance to leftists.
it's not just another thing in the list. it's the single, biggest issue - outside of putting an end to the wars created by 9/11.
this might be something bernie doesn't realize. he might want to do some polling; he may be shocked to find out that only a small percentage of his backers have any interest in getting tough on wall street at all.
frankly, the whole wall street spiel is actually pretty much my biggest disagreement with him. i would support reinstating glass-steagall. but, i think a lender of last resort is pretty important. and, i know that the so-called bailouts are actually loans.
but, i'll happily put that nonsense aside to talk about his broader prescriptions. and, the stance on trade is absolutely central. i may be giving away that it's so fundamentally important that i'd consider supporting the republicans over it - if i really believed they'd act to break it up.
this is actually fairly urgent...
the power went out this morning, and it seems to have fried the heater in the living room. this happened some time last summer, and it wasn't a big deal because it was summer. but it's still winter. so, that really can't be allowed to sit.
the last time it happened, you just changed out the electronics. but, i need to ask - is there something about the wiring that could be modified? i mean, that's twice that it knocked out in an electrical storm.
the last time it happened, you just changed out the electronics. but, i need to ask - is there something about the wiring that could be modified? i mean, that's twice that it knocked out in an electrical storm.
j reacts to her own reading of the polls, reflecting on the results
so, where'd i go wrong tonight?
i want to tie what i said about ohio back to the 538 article, because despite coming short on expectations, i think i beat them pretty solidly on the math.
they were claiming - based on demographics and polling - that ohio should be more like michigan, and illinois and missouri should be bigger clinton wins. it was in the form of "more black people, therefore more clinton" and "ohio is white, so it should be more like michigan".
i said - no way. check the voting history. which states are liberal? which are conservative?
and, i think the results solidly debunk all of those arguments. based on those kinds of arguments, the white working class state of ohio should have solidly backed sanders and missouri should have backed clinton by the ten points they claimed.
i made one error - i was off by about ten points all around. i called missouri and illinois for sanders by ten and ohio a functional draw - she won ohio by a little less than ten, and missouri and illinois were a draw.
so, i got the pattern right, at least - i'm just off by ten points. the aggregates and demographic modelling didn't even get the pattern right.
why was i off by ten points? turnout. either in terms of myself exaggerating turnout, in terms of turnout being less than it could have been or in terms of the stuffing counteracting it is not clear. but, it's reduced to an error in projected turnout nonetheless. and, that shifted the results in all three states by about ten points.
--
i want to be clear on that point, as it's not trivial, right.
i looked at the polling and said "ok. but they're underpolling independents. so, i'm going to shift the results."
i did that in michigan, and it got me closer - but it wasn't enough of a shift. tonight, this kind of thinking continued to beat the models, but it was too much of a shift - about 10%. consistently.
i want to tie what i said about ohio back to the 538 article, because despite coming short on expectations, i think i beat them pretty solidly on the math.
they were claiming - based on demographics and polling - that ohio should be more like michigan, and illinois and missouri should be bigger clinton wins. it was in the form of "more black people, therefore more clinton" and "ohio is white, so it should be more like michigan".
i said - no way. check the voting history. which states are liberal? which are conservative?
and, i think the results solidly debunk all of those arguments. based on those kinds of arguments, the white working class state of ohio should have solidly backed sanders and missouri should have backed clinton by the ten points they claimed.
i made one error - i was off by about ten points all around. i called missouri and illinois for sanders by ten and ohio a functional draw - she won ohio by a little less than ten, and missouri and illinois were a draw.
so, i got the pattern right, at least - i'm just off by ten points. the aggregates and demographic modelling didn't even get the pattern right.
why was i off by ten points? turnout. either in terms of myself exaggerating turnout, in terms of turnout being less than it could have been or in terms of the stuffing counteracting it is not clear. but, it's reduced to an error in projected turnout nonetheless. and, that shifted the results in all three states by about ten points.
--
i want to be clear on that point, as it's not trivial, right.
i looked at the polling and said "ok. but they're underpolling independents. so, i'm going to shift the results."
i did that in michigan, and it got me closer - but it wasn't enough of a shift. tonight, this kind of thinking continued to beat the models, but it was too much of a shift - about 10%. consistently.
j reacts to what the supertuesday II results tell us about the fairness of the results (#2)
so, is the primary fair? how's the cognitive dissonance doing?
well, the night started off pretty poorly - with these huge head starts. "initial state", or whatever it was. i guess that these are absentee ballots, or early voting or whatever. and, we can see that these votes were disproportionately in favour of clinton, and that these leads came down dramatically over the night.
it's all very easy to explain and everything. older voters, and whatnot. but, we have to keep coming back to this thought experiment: if she was going to rig it...
it is what it is, right? you want to play the game, you have to play by the rules. a little irony, but it's life. he knew what he was getting into.
michigan proved that it is possible to overrun the ballot-box stuffing and win with brute force of high turnout, but it's hard to maintain and she can of course adjust.
florida was a little wider than the late polls suggested - albeit not a lot. she supposedly got 75% of the vote in miami-dade. that's a 90,000 vote win. and, so, what's the difference - a delegate?
chicago might seem more important. she probably won by stuffing boxes in chicago (with black people's names - see how this works? it's the democrats, folks. what did you expect?). but, it works out to a few delegates, at the end of it.
the question here was whether it was rigged, and again i think they tried to but they're only stuffing it enough to try and get across a media message - she wins. veni, vidi, vici. well, this is the right mindset with this woman, right.
so, she got enough ballots in illinois and missouri to swing the checkmark. and, she overcompensated in ohio.
but, the cheating is not really altering the race. or, not yet.
the antidote is higher turnout. you can only stuff so many ballot boxes. and, you can overpower any and every attempt to cheat with brute force - if you can get enough people out.
so, is it rigged? sort of. but, don't complain about it. run the limes, instead.
well, the night started off pretty poorly - with these huge head starts. "initial state", or whatever it was. i guess that these are absentee ballots, or early voting or whatever. and, we can see that these votes were disproportionately in favour of clinton, and that these leads came down dramatically over the night.
it's all very easy to explain and everything. older voters, and whatnot. but, we have to keep coming back to this thought experiment: if she was going to rig it...
it is what it is, right? you want to play the game, you have to play by the rules. a little irony, but it's life. he knew what he was getting into.
michigan proved that it is possible to overrun the ballot-box stuffing and win with brute force of high turnout, but it's hard to maintain and she can of course adjust.
florida was a little wider than the late polls suggested - albeit not a lot. she supposedly got 75% of the vote in miami-dade. that's a 90,000 vote win. and, so, what's the difference - a delegate?
chicago might seem more important. she probably won by stuffing boxes in chicago (with black people's names - see how this works? it's the democrats, folks. what did you expect?). but, it works out to a few delegates, at the end of it.
the question here was whether it was rigged, and again i think they tried to but they're only stuffing it enough to try and get across a media message - she wins. veni, vidi, vici. well, this is the right mindset with this woman, right.
so, she got enough ballots in illinois and missouri to swing the checkmark. and, she overcompensated in ohio.
but, the cheating is not really altering the race. or, not yet.
the antidote is higher turnout. you can only stuff so many ballot boxes. and, you can overpower any and every attempt to cheat with brute force - if you can get enough people out.
so, is it rigged? sort of. but, don't complain about it. run the limes, instead.
j reacts to the question of whether ohio was ever seriously in play
so, the ohio vote stabilized around 56.5.
this is higher than north carolina. do you believe that?
i kind of don't, and i went through this. but, i think it is important to temper it a little, too.
again: the argument was that ohio is just like michigan. what?
ohio voted for bush. it's electoral history looks more like virginia's than michigan's. so, it shouldn't be surprising.
the truth is that you were being misled by silly models. you should have never really expected him to win ohio. really. ever.
you should have expected him to win illinois, though.
this is higher than north carolina. do you believe that?
i kind of don't, and i went through this. but, i think it is important to temper it a little, too.
again: the argument was that ohio is just like michigan. what?
ohio voted for bush. it's electoral history looks more like virginia's than michigan's. so, it shouldn't be surprising.
the truth is that you were being misled by silly models. you should have never really expected him to win ohio. really. ever.
you should have expected him to win illinois, though.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
j reacts to whether the results really change the math of the race or not
so, i'm going to spin this a little bit. remember: it's about delegates.
i thought he would win missouri and illinois by comfortable margins, lose by equivalent margins in florida and north carolina and split ohio. that's a little different than other people were suggesting. but, had it worked out that way, it basically cancels out and lets him move forward.
the results?
well, he performed about how was expected in florida.
but he did a little better in north carolina than expected, which is good. that said, he did a little worse in ohio than expected. in terms of delegates? that actually cancels out.
the disappointment, then, is that he did not do better in missouri amd illinois. he may end up "winning" both, but he's really splitting both, regardless of who technically wins. he needed to use these states to try and gain delegates, not to break even.
so, where he's going to lose delegates tonight is in underperforming in missouri and illinois - and that likely reduces to turnout.
spring break? maybe.
it makes it a little harder, sure. but it doesn't really change the race. no, really. if you look at it closely, it doesn't. he still needs to get about 60% over the next 9 states up to new york - and he should be able to do that. then, he still needs to win 50+ delegates in new york. from there, the math isn't really substantially different - he'd still have to win the next couple of dates, and he'd still have to win big in california.
so, it would have been a moral victory if he had won thirty or forty more delegates, sure. but it doesn't change the math....
--
no. really.
mo:
71*.6 = 43.
71*.5 = 36
ill:
156*.6 = 94
156*.5 = 78
(43-36) + (94-78) =
7 + 16 =
23.
not a big difference. he can make that up by overperforming in pennsylvania.
i thought he would win missouri and illinois by comfortable margins, lose by equivalent margins in florida and north carolina and split ohio. that's a little different than other people were suggesting. but, had it worked out that way, it basically cancels out and lets him move forward.
the results?
well, he performed about how was expected in florida.
but he did a little better in north carolina than expected, which is good. that said, he did a little worse in ohio than expected. in terms of delegates? that actually cancels out.
the disappointment, then, is that he did not do better in missouri amd illinois. he may end up "winning" both, but he's really splitting both, regardless of who technically wins. he needed to use these states to try and gain delegates, not to break even.
so, where he's going to lose delegates tonight is in underperforming in missouri and illinois - and that likely reduces to turnout.
spring break? maybe.
it makes it a little harder, sure. but it doesn't really change the race. no, really. if you look at it closely, it doesn't. he still needs to get about 60% over the next 9 states up to new york - and he should be able to do that. then, he still needs to win 50+ delegates in new york. from there, the math isn't really substantially different - he'd still have to win the next couple of dates, and he'd still have to win big in california.
so, it would have been a moral victory if he had won thirty or forty more delegates, sure. but it doesn't change the math....
--
no. really.
mo:
71*.6 = 43.
71*.5 = 36
ill:
156*.6 = 94
156*.5 = 78
(43-36) + (94-78) =
7 + 16 =
23.
not a big difference. he can make that up by overperforming in pennsylvania.
j reacts to what the supertuesday II results tell us about the fairness of the results (# 1)
they called ohio too early.
i mentioned this in massachusetts: it looks like she stuffed ballots in boston. and he almost overwhelmed it.
i mentioned it in michigan: it looks like she stuffed ballots in detroit. and he did overwhelm it.
that's where she could stuff ballots. and, the urban/rural split is backwards. i mean, did we enter the twilight zone? then, there's something funny going on.
so, she looks at the "expert analysis" for today. and, they say that she could lose ohio. so, she stuffs ohio extra good - to make sure he couldn't possibly overwhelm her.
so, she starts off with a huge lead. 70%. "initial results". then, they call it within a few minutes, right. all according to plan...
now, i didn't think ohio was the state she had to worry about. i thought it was illinois. and, there's a lot of illinois that hasn't come in, yet.
but, whether i was right or wrong, something is curious: he is consistently gaining in ohio. she's fallen, steadily, from 70% to 57%. and, this movement is continuing.
wait for it.
can he overwhelm it, after all?
i mentioned this in massachusetts: it looks like she stuffed ballots in boston. and he almost overwhelmed it.
i mentioned it in michigan: it looks like she stuffed ballots in detroit. and he did overwhelm it.
that's where she could stuff ballots. and, the urban/rural split is backwards. i mean, did we enter the twilight zone? then, there's something funny going on.
so, she looks at the "expert analysis" for today. and, they say that she could lose ohio. so, she stuffs ohio extra good - to make sure he couldn't possibly overwhelm her.
so, she starts off with a huge lead. 70%. "initial results". then, they call it within a few minutes, right. all according to plan...
now, i didn't think ohio was the state she had to worry about. i thought it was illinois. and, there's a lot of illinois that hasn't come in, yet.
but, whether i was right or wrong, something is curious: he is consistently gaining in ohio. she's fallen, steadily, from 70% to 57%. and, this movement is continuing.
wait for it.
can he overwhelm it, after all?
j reacts to the error of dropping rubio if the establishment aim is truly to stop trump
dropping rubio remains an error.
let's look at these numbers, excluding florida.
ill:
trump: 42
kasich: 26
cruz: 22
rubio: 9
mo:
trump: 49
cruz: 32
rubio: 9
kasich: 5
nc:
trump: 40
cruz: 34
kasich: 13
rubio: 10
you can see, clearly, that dropping rubio doesn't give anybody enough support to catch trump, anywhere, in the winner-takes-all states. it will, however, give trump a roughly 5 point boost - which helps him in the remaining proportional states.
if the republican party has given up and is embracing trump? well, sure.
if this is meant to help cruz or kasich? fail.
rubio dropping only helps one person: trump.
let's look at these numbers, excluding florida.
ill:
trump: 42
kasich: 26
cruz: 22
rubio: 9
mo:
trump: 49
cruz: 32
rubio: 9
kasich: 5
nc:
trump: 40
cruz: 34
kasich: 13
rubio: 10
you can see, clearly, that dropping rubio doesn't give anybody enough support to catch trump, anywhere, in the winner-takes-all states. it will, however, give trump a roughly 5 point boost - which helps him in the remaining proportional states.
if the republican party has given up and is embracing trump? well, sure.
if this is meant to help cruz or kasich? fail.
rubio dropping only helps one person: trump.
don't take this too seriously. they're very round numbers. but, it gives you an idea of what could happen tonight.
clinton:
214*.6 + 156*.4 + 71*.4 + 107*.6 + 143*.5 = 355
sanders:
214*.4 + 156*.6 + 71*.6 + 107*.4 + 143*.5 = 336
if he can keep it a little closer in florida, and get a bit of distance elsewhere, it gets closer.
but, that's basically split. and, then the calendar turns dramatically in his favour - he could sweep from now until new york.
then, he must make up delegates in new york. around 50 or so. and, things will seem very different than they do now once we get there.
but.
it was always about california.
clinton:
214*.6 + 156*.4 + 71*.4 + 107*.6 + 143*.5 = 355
sanders:
214*.4 + 156*.6 + 71*.6 + 107*.4 + 143*.5 = 336
if he can keep it a little closer in florida, and get a bit of distance elsewhere, it gets closer.
but, that's basically split. and, then the calendar turns dramatically in his favour - he could sweep from now until new york.
then, he must make up delegates in new york. around 50 or so. and, things will seem very different than they do now once we get there.
but.
it was always about california.
j reacts to racial profiling as a predictor variable [correlation dni causality]
i just want to draw attention to this because it's exactly the kind of analysis that i think is completely wrong, and exactly what i'm flailing against.
they are claiming that proportion of black voters is predictive; that it's causal. i claim it's not, that it's a proxy for ideology. and, they're running through all of these other irrelevant things that are purely correlative, and at best proxies (but largely, not even). this is the basic error of correlation not implying causality. it doesn't. it never has. no matter how convenient pollsters think it is, it's still wrong. no matter how ubiquitous..
i am calling illinois for bernie because it is a blue, liberal state. i think he will win illinois big, and there is some polling that upholds this. missouri and ohio are purple states and should actually split - although i think bernie will win missouri and ohio is less clear (based on polling). so, ohio is the least likely because it is the most purple. and, frankly, the polling for florida (a blue-to-purple state) isn't making sense to me - but i don't have any valid argument to suggest he has a real chance, other than to question the modelling in the polling (and all that can do, at best, is take the margin down - but i said the same thing about michigan). i have claimed florida will be closer than expected.
we saw the black thing break down a little in michigan, but michigan is purple. illinois will collapse the whole thing altogether and make it clear that race is not the predictive variable, but merely a coincidental one.
but, it won't stop the media. this is what the media does. this is what the country is!
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-bernie-sanders-pull-off-an-upset-in-ohio/
they are claiming that proportion of black voters is predictive; that it's causal. i claim it's not, that it's a proxy for ideology. and, they're running through all of these other irrelevant things that are purely correlative, and at best proxies (but largely, not even). this is the basic error of correlation not implying causality. it doesn't. it never has. no matter how convenient pollsters think it is, it's still wrong. no matter how ubiquitous..
i am calling illinois for bernie because it is a blue, liberal state. i think he will win illinois big, and there is some polling that upholds this. missouri and ohio are purple states and should actually split - although i think bernie will win missouri and ohio is less clear (based on polling). so, ohio is the least likely because it is the most purple. and, frankly, the polling for florida (a blue-to-purple state) isn't making sense to me - but i don't have any valid argument to suggest he has a real chance, other than to question the modelling in the polling (and all that can do, at best, is take the margin down - but i said the same thing about michigan). i have claimed florida will be closer than expected.
we saw the black thing break down a little in michigan, but michigan is purple. illinois will collapse the whole thing altogether and make it clear that race is not the predictive variable, but merely a coincidental one.
but, it won't stop the media. this is what the media does. this is what the country is!
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-bernie-sanders-pull-off-an-upset-in-ohio/
j reacts to possible misperceptions about endorsements in previous cycles
i just woke up from a dream that featured a lengthy political debate with my subconscious, and i want to be clear about where i stood in 2008.
i supported clinton over obama in 2008. the reason was that i - correctly - calculated that clinton was to the left of obama on a couple of things, and interchangeable on the rest.
but, there was one major issue that led me to support clinton over obama, and it was healthcare. obama made it very clear that he opposed single payer (even if he flopped on a public option). at the time, hillary was suggesting that she supported single payer. with all the concern about hilllary's trustworthiness aside, obama was blatantly presenting himself as a market fundamentalist, and hillary just seemed like the better choice to abolish a market-based healthcare system (which is in the self-interest of canada).
that was the single, dominant issue - i thought she would be better on healthcare. and, despite all the flipflopping on hillary's side, obama's health care plan is exactly what i didn't support - meaning she could have only been better, on the issue.
but, i want to be clear that this was also a lesser-evil calculation. i never whole-assedly supported clinton the way i'm supporting sanders. it was always "well, they're both horrible, but she's a little better." - the typical left-liberal approach to democratic party politics.
but, i've identified some other issues in the current election that matter to me, as a canadian. what did i think in 2008?
1) foreign policy is big. it's a huge reason i'm pushing for sanders. in 2008? i decided they were both neo-con interventionists and that they would not differ in any substantial way on foreign policy. i did not fall for the hype on obama; i understood that he was not opposed to the invasion of iraq on principle (like sanders was) but simply because he thought it was a poor tactical decision. i heard him loud and clear when he stated, repeatedly, that he'd have rather blown afghanistan into a crater, if he had the chance. so, i saw them both as imperialist, interventionist, pro-war candidates. i did not see any reason to support obama on this file. and, he went and made her secretary of state, so i hardly think i analyzed this poorly.
2) trade. i saw them as interchangeable on trade, as well. and, what obama has left us with is the tpp - which is exactly what clinton would have left us with.
and, i could run through this list, and you'll see that commonality - what i saw was a two-headed monster with a slightly different health care policy.
that's very different than what i'm seeing today. sanders is a real choice for some change, even if it's not as extreme as some would like to exaggerate it. obama never was - and, if you were fully informed, you knew that the whole time.
i supported clinton over obama in 2008. the reason was that i - correctly - calculated that clinton was to the left of obama on a couple of things, and interchangeable on the rest.
but, there was one major issue that led me to support clinton over obama, and it was healthcare. obama made it very clear that he opposed single payer (even if he flopped on a public option). at the time, hillary was suggesting that she supported single payer. with all the concern about hilllary's trustworthiness aside, obama was blatantly presenting himself as a market fundamentalist, and hillary just seemed like the better choice to abolish a market-based healthcare system (which is in the self-interest of canada).
that was the single, dominant issue - i thought she would be better on healthcare. and, despite all the flipflopping on hillary's side, obama's health care plan is exactly what i didn't support - meaning she could have only been better, on the issue.
but, i want to be clear that this was also a lesser-evil calculation. i never whole-assedly supported clinton the way i'm supporting sanders. it was always "well, they're both horrible, but she's a little better." - the typical left-liberal approach to democratic party politics.
but, i've identified some other issues in the current election that matter to me, as a canadian. what did i think in 2008?
1) foreign policy is big. it's a huge reason i'm pushing for sanders. in 2008? i decided they were both neo-con interventionists and that they would not differ in any substantial way on foreign policy. i did not fall for the hype on obama; i understood that he was not opposed to the invasion of iraq on principle (like sanders was) but simply because he thought it was a poor tactical decision. i heard him loud and clear when he stated, repeatedly, that he'd have rather blown afghanistan into a crater, if he had the chance. so, i saw them both as imperialist, interventionist, pro-war candidates. i did not see any reason to support obama on this file. and, he went and made her secretary of state, so i hardly think i analyzed this poorly.
2) trade. i saw them as interchangeable on trade, as well. and, what obama has left us with is the tpp - which is exactly what clinton would have left us with.
and, i could run through this list, and you'll see that commonality - what i saw was a two-headed monster with a slightly different health care policy.
that's very different than what i'm seeing today. sanders is a real choice for some change, even if it's not as extreme as some would like to exaggerate it. obama never was - and, if you were fully informed, you knew that the whole time.
Monday, March 14, 2016
j reacts to mar 15 pre-polling pt 2
this will probably be my last polling analysis update. and, it's huge - because it's cementing what i've been saying. sort of.
on the one hand, this is the perfect opportunity to test what i'm saying, which is why i'm doing this. we have long term aggregate modelling in multiple states. we have a single, reliable poll taken within a few days of the vote. which one is more accurate? i claim that reading the single snapshot will be more accurate than the aggregate modelling, and you can throw all that out the window.
on the other hand, i need to bring my cognitive dissonance back in. this poll is suggesting - across the board - that clinton is doing better with self-identified liberals, while sanders is doing better with self-identified conservatives. this is patently ridiculous, and could only be explained in three ways:
1) clinton's attacks (on gun rights, for example) are backfiring & people just aren't listening to bernie at all. do gun rights really overpower health care? this is crazy.
2) this poll is a part of the rigging process, in which case the clinton campaign is trying to lower expectations ahead of a careful grind & halt operation.
3) it's just some kind of weird anomaly.
see, i can't analyze this thing under the assumption that it's a vast, right-wing conspiracy against sanders - even if my gut tells me it is. i need to analyze it on face value. but i can caveat it.
florida
he's actually not doing so badly. she's under 60. the polling seems to be polling women higher than the population, which maybe says something about the sample. if he keeps her under 60, it's a hole he can climb out of - if he wins big in illinois. but, there's reason to think he may be able to keep it under 55, too.
the flip side is turnout amongst old people. but, i have a criticism of the modelling on this point, too: while they are correct to point out that turnout is higher around the age of 65, they fail to model the decline in turnout that sets in as age increases. so, when they model 65-70 year olds as more likely to vote, this is correct - but when they model 85-90 year olds as also more likely to vote, this is wrong. they only gather data in a 65+ age category. they simply don't know how much of the over 65 sample is also over 80.
over the last few years, it has been publicized that polling firms have screwed up predictions by overweighting young people. i believe that there are examples (the last ontario provincial election) where they overcompensated by overweighting old people. you need to watch for that in florida.
but, that doesn't change the reality that a win, here, for sanders is keeping clinton to 60. and a big win is keeping her to 55.
north carolina
they're claiming she has a big lead amongst early voters. again: if hillary was going to rig this, how would she do it? but, still, again: if she's really only pushing 50% on the yet-to-vote, then an optimistic scenario suggests he can keep her under 55, if he can get that turnout up.
what i said about michigan was that you should expect her to win, but that it will be closer than expected. i'm saying the same thing about florida & north carolina. i think there's a higher level of expectation that she win these states. but make of it what you will.
it will be suspicious if north carolina looks like alabama (alabamastan? these are soviet polling numbers...) as the polls don't support that - and, perhaps the polls didn't really support the large margins in these other southern states, either. it will also be suspicious if she wins florida by a large margin, when the polls are steady-to-narrowing.
illinois
all of the factors put together (including overpolling women, again) make it clear: bernie sanders will win illinois. the question is by how much - 55? 60? 65? it's all about turnout. he needs delegates! so, if you're in illinois then get out and vote. how well he does in illinois will likely determine how seriously he's taken after tomorrow.
another thing to watch in illinois: this poll suggests that his support amongst blacks is statistically the same as his support amongst latinos. now, he may lose both. but, the point is that they're the same. that is massive, as it is the first sign of hillary's weird lock on blacks breaking up - and strongly suggestive that this might be about southern, conservative blacks rather than blacks altogether.
it will be suspicious if she wins illinois, by any margin. bernie ought to be favoured, here.
missouri
bernie sanders will also win missouri. and, note that they are again oversampling women. it's almost like they're doing this on purpose. again: get out and vote! it's about turnout.
it will be suspicious if she wins missouri, by any margin. bernie ought to be favoured, here.
ohio
ohio has 12% undecided. how are you undecided on hillary clinton? what that means is that you want to vote for sanders, but can't get past your programming - or don't want to admit it over the phone. advantage: bernie.
they oversampled women, again.
with all of the factors, i also think that bernie ought to be favoured to win ohio, but it will be closer. so, get out and vote! that's going to be the difference: turnout.
=====
so, again, it's not completely clear what this poll is.
either it's the decent, post-michigan poll i was waiting for - and it's confirming my analysis...
....or it's a part of hillary's faltering attempt to fix the nomination, and meant to lower expectations for a run on the polls that she expects will overpower her attempts to stuff ballot boxes.
either way, it's clear that bernie is surging and that his ability to win tomorrow depends on turnout.
i think they basically split the delegates for the day, and move on to the next fight. but, the momentum puts sanders in a stronger position to gain delegates in new york and pennsylvania.
but, it was always about california.
on the one hand, this is the perfect opportunity to test what i'm saying, which is why i'm doing this. we have long term aggregate modelling in multiple states. we have a single, reliable poll taken within a few days of the vote. which one is more accurate? i claim that reading the single snapshot will be more accurate than the aggregate modelling, and you can throw all that out the window.
on the other hand, i need to bring my cognitive dissonance back in. this poll is suggesting - across the board - that clinton is doing better with self-identified liberals, while sanders is doing better with self-identified conservatives. this is patently ridiculous, and could only be explained in three ways:
1) clinton's attacks (on gun rights, for example) are backfiring & people just aren't listening to bernie at all. do gun rights really overpower health care? this is crazy.
2) this poll is a part of the rigging process, in which case the clinton campaign is trying to lower expectations ahead of a careful grind & halt operation.
3) it's just some kind of weird anomaly.
see, i can't analyze this thing under the assumption that it's a vast, right-wing conspiracy against sanders - even if my gut tells me it is. i need to analyze it on face value. but i can caveat it.
florida
he's actually not doing so badly. she's under 60. the polling seems to be polling women higher than the population, which maybe says something about the sample. if he keeps her under 60, it's a hole he can climb out of - if he wins big in illinois. but, there's reason to think he may be able to keep it under 55, too.
the flip side is turnout amongst old people. but, i have a criticism of the modelling on this point, too: while they are correct to point out that turnout is higher around the age of 65, they fail to model the decline in turnout that sets in as age increases. so, when they model 65-70 year olds as more likely to vote, this is correct - but when they model 85-90 year olds as also more likely to vote, this is wrong. they only gather data in a 65+ age category. they simply don't know how much of the over 65 sample is also over 80.
over the last few years, it has been publicized that polling firms have screwed up predictions by overweighting young people. i believe that there are examples (the last ontario provincial election) where they overcompensated by overweighting old people. you need to watch for that in florida.
but, that doesn't change the reality that a win, here, for sanders is keeping clinton to 60. and a big win is keeping her to 55.
north carolina
they're claiming she has a big lead amongst early voters. again: if hillary was going to rig this, how would she do it? but, still, again: if she's really only pushing 50% on the yet-to-vote, then an optimistic scenario suggests he can keep her under 55, if he can get that turnout up.
what i said about michigan was that you should expect her to win, but that it will be closer than expected. i'm saying the same thing about florida & north carolina. i think there's a higher level of expectation that she win these states. but make of it what you will.
it will be suspicious if north carolina looks like alabama (alabamastan? these are soviet polling numbers...) as the polls don't support that - and, perhaps the polls didn't really support the large margins in these other southern states, either. it will also be suspicious if she wins florida by a large margin, when the polls are steady-to-narrowing.
illinois
all of the factors put together (including overpolling women, again) make it clear: bernie sanders will win illinois. the question is by how much - 55? 60? 65? it's all about turnout. he needs delegates! so, if you're in illinois then get out and vote. how well he does in illinois will likely determine how seriously he's taken after tomorrow.
another thing to watch in illinois: this poll suggests that his support amongst blacks is statistically the same as his support amongst latinos. now, he may lose both. but, the point is that they're the same. that is massive, as it is the first sign of hillary's weird lock on blacks breaking up - and strongly suggestive that this might be about southern, conservative blacks rather than blacks altogether.
it will be suspicious if she wins illinois, by any margin. bernie ought to be favoured, here.
missouri
bernie sanders will also win missouri. and, note that they are again oversampling women. it's almost like they're doing this on purpose. again: get out and vote! it's about turnout.
it will be suspicious if she wins missouri, by any margin. bernie ought to be favoured, here.
ohio
ohio has 12% undecided. how are you undecided on hillary clinton? what that means is that you want to vote for sanders, but can't get past your programming - or don't want to admit it over the phone. advantage: bernie.
they oversampled women, again.
with all of the factors, i also think that bernie ought to be favoured to win ohio, but it will be closer. so, get out and vote! that's going to be the difference: turnout.
=====
so, again, it's not completely clear what this poll is.
either it's the decent, post-michigan poll i was waiting for - and it's confirming my analysis...
....or it's a part of hillary's faltering attempt to fix the nomination, and meant to lower expectations for a run on the polls that she expects will overpower her attempts to stuff ballot boxes.
either way, it's clear that bernie is surging and that his ability to win tomorrow depends on turnout.
i think they basically split the delegates for the day, and move on to the next fight. but, the momentum puts sanders in a stronger position to gain delegates in new york and pennsylvania.
but, it was always about california.
well, the first thing the us would do if it wanted to ban slavery would be to fix the "except as a punishment for crime" part of the thirteenth amendment, which has been used to legally sanction slavery for the last 150 years. there were the jim crow laws for a while; nowadays, we have the supposed drug war. that requires some effort, though. you could ban private prisons, for a start.
and, in fact, this law is likely not disconnected from the growing power of private prisons in the united states. the comments are focusing a lot on nike. but, this is old information: nike has reshored over the last decade, and now mostly produces it's shoes through domestic prison labour, rather than foreign child labour. a ban like this essentially acts as a tariff, giving the prison slave labour industry a competitive advantage.
listen, i didn't build this. i don't even live there. i'm just saying.
and, in fact, this law is likely not disconnected from the growing power of private prisons in the united states. the comments are focusing a lot on nike. but, this is old information: nike has reshored over the last decade, and now mostly produces it's shoes through domestic prison labour, rather than foreign child labour. a ban like this essentially acts as a tariff, giving the prison slave labour industry a competitive advantage.
listen, i didn't build this. i don't even live there. i'm just saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)