So, a friend of mine shared this with me. This video involves a black person representing black lives matter, or at least talking about it, discussing the issue with Clinton, and Clinton basically acts extremely tone deaf and talks down to him. I am almost beyond words. All election, Hillary Clinton has been portrayed as this champion of black people, and that if you support Trump, you're a racist, and if you support Bernie or Stein you're privileged (although admittedly maybe there's a point with some Trump people). This narrative has been pushed all election, and it's really been pissing me off. And now Clinton goes and does something so tone deaf I'd almost rank it up there with Trump's taco bowl thing. Un-freaking-believable.
First, let's talk about what exactly she said. She said, in response to black lives matter being a primarily white problem, that if that's his logic she should talk only to white people about fixing the problem. Um...what? WHAT?! This is way more tone deaf than Sanders has ever supposedly been, and again, I suspect if that Trump said that he would be crucified by the media for doing so. She also said that she doesn't care about changing hearts and minds, only systems. Now, as someone who has interest in system changing, I tend to at least slightly agree on some issues, but dang, changing hearts and minds is a thing too, especially on this particular issue.
Look, here's the thing. Black Lives Matter is a problem that has to do with cops acting in ways that end up being systemically racist. They tend to react more violently toward blacks than toward whites assuming the same actions and the same crimes. You can change rules and procedures and stuff, but ultimately, cops have to make FIELD DECISIONS that require split second decision making, and if they are victim to implicitly racist attitudes those field decisions may have systemically racist consequences, like black people getting shot way more often even when not being particularly threatening.
That being said, a few things that need to be said that run directly counter to Clinton's comments here.
1) Whites DO need to listen to blacks on this issue. Whites talking only to other whites is a huge problem that leads to this issue, because whites living in an echo chamber don't understand blacks. White NEED TO LISTEN. Hillary Clinton NEEDS TO LISTEN. And she isn't. She's showing her "privilege" in cringey ways here. Go back to the public policy cycle I mentioned I mentioned in previous posts. Before we can address a problem, it needs to be defined. And black people have a problem with systemic racism that we're not going to understand unless we let them talk and define the problem to us.
2) This is a hearts and minds issue. You can regulate all you want, but again, we're talking police officers making split second decisions in the field, and their implicit racial biases perhaps playing a part in these their decision of whether they shoot or not. The best way to solve the issue is for whites to change, to become aware of these biases and try to grow out of them. Not ignoring them and pretending they don't exist. That being said, Clinton is dead wrong here.
What Clinton has said here was extremely cringey and a paramount example of white privilege. The same white privilege her campaign has accused my favorite candidates and many who think like me of this whole election. Hillary doesn't understand black lives matter. Hillary, I don't think, even understands the issue properly. And like she's done with Sanders supporters all election, she is talking down to and condescending those who disagree with her. She's showing worse social skills than I do, and, for a bit of self deprecation here, that's pretty darned bad.
I suspect that if anyone else had done this, CNN, MSNBC, and all the other propaganda arms of the democratic party would be spamming this stuff 24/7. If Sanders said it in the primary, he would be torn apart for it, and he has been attacked for far less. And if Trump said it, forget it. But Clinton? She's the democratic party declared champion of black people anywhere, the only candidate who "truly gets it", and that anyone who disagrees with her here is either racist or privileged. Meanwhile all I see here is her being extremely privileged. Gotta love those double standards though. Can't wait to see how CTR spins this one if it's even mentioned at all. I'm guessing they'll try to downplay it.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Saturday, August 20, 2016
More evidence the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders
So, some people don't think the Election Justice USA PDF is credible and that it's biased or something. Looking at the data itself, it looks reliable and trustworthy enough and uses good science, but whatever. Here's another PDF from Stanford University that implies Clinton stole the primary. Hopefully people will put more stock into an actual famous university arguing this stuff. I hate to pull an argument from authority, but it seems like it's the only thing we can do with people who bury their head in the sand.
This one is short so I can cover it more in depth. Much like Election Justice USA, this analysis looks at a lot of data related to how people voted, flagging suspicious patterns that may indicate vote rigging. Let's look into the details.
Paper trails
The author found significant differences in polling places with paper trails than areas without them. This is important because areas without paper trails are more susceptible to rigging and rigging is harder to prove. They found that on average, areas without paper trails were much more friendly to Clinton than areas with paper trails. No such correlation was found in 2008 either. Hmm, interesting...
Caucuses
They also analyzed data for caucuses, and only found off results in the two states (Iowa and Nevada) where voter suppression was reported. Also interesting...
Exit polls vs results
This was also covered in Election Justice USA's analysis, but there were also a lot of differences between exit polls and the results, and that these results generally tended to trend in favor of Hillary.
2008 vs 2016
To control for these results, data was compared against the 2008 election between Clinton and Obama and no suspicious results were found in 2008, but were found in 2016. Hmm....
Conclusion
As we know, there has been a lot of suspicious data suggesting that perhaps the results were rigged or otherwise skewed toward Clinton. There has been significantly more funny business going on in areas without paper trails, particularly in primary states (relative to caucus states). There has been a lot of differences between exit polls and the results that arguably can't be explained by the margin of error, and these results only happened this election.
This whole process is shady as heck. Of course, this isn't a smoking gun where someone is being caught literally red handed, but there's enough evidence to be reasonably suspicious of the results. Personally, I think the whole thing was rigged. I already knew this and posted on this before, but people didn't trust the other source for some reason, well, now we have Stanford jumping on board. Boom.
This one is short so I can cover it more in depth. Much like Election Justice USA, this analysis looks at a lot of data related to how people voted, flagging suspicious patterns that may indicate vote rigging. Let's look into the details.
Paper trails
The author found significant differences in polling places with paper trails than areas without them. This is important because areas without paper trails are more susceptible to rigging and rigging is harder to prove. They found that on average, areas without paper trails were much more friendly to Clinton than areas with paper trails. No such correlation was found in 2008 either. Hmm, interesting...
Caucuses
They also analyzed data for caucuses, and only found off results in the two states (Iowa and Nevada) where voter suppression was reported. Also interesting...
Exit polls vs results
This was also covered in Election Justice USA's analysis, but there were also a lot of differences between exit polls and the results, and that these results generally tended to trend in favor of Hillary.
2008 vs 2016
To control for these results, data was compared against the 2008 election between Clinton and Obama and no suspicious results were found in 2008, but were found in 2016. Hmm....
Conclusion
As we know, there has been a lot of suspicious data suggesting that perhaps the results were rigged or otherwise skewed toward Clinton. There has been significantly more funny business going on in areas without paper trails, particularly in primary states (relative to caucus states). There has been a lot of differences between exit polls and the results that arguably can't be explained by the margin of error, and these results only happened this election.
This whole process is shady as heck. Of course, this isn't a smoking gun where someone is being caught literally red handed, but there's enough evidence to be reasonably suspicious of the results. Personally, I think the whole thing was rigged. I already knew this and posted on this before, but people didn't trust the other source for some reason, well, now we have Stanford jumping on board. Boom.
Friday, August 19, 2016
Seriously greens? Leave the guy who asked Stein about spoilers on CNN alone
So, for those of you who don't know, recently there was a town hall on CNN that featured Jill Stein. One guy asked him a question about her being a potential spoiler like Nader in 2000, and was quickly assumed by many greens to be a Hillary plant. Some have even gone so far to doxx him and harass him on social media over it.
First of all, doxxing and harassing people isn't cool, and I've seen a disturbing amount of that happen this year. Second of all, looking into the matter, THE GUY IS AN EX BERNIE SUPPORTER. Beyond that, he's a Bernie supporter who talked a lot on social media about being pissed off at the democrats for them rigging the primary.
He doesn't seem to be on board with Stein because he's buying into the fear of Trump getting elected if he doesn't support Hillary. While I don't agree with such an approach, okay. Whatever.
But honestly, how do greens seriously think he's going to react after having his social media accounts harassed by tons of Stein supporters calling him a plant and saying nasty things to him? Do they think he's going to vote green? Honestly, if that was the perception I was given of the green party and I was reluctantly supporting Clinton, I would be telling them "screw you guys, you just solidified my vote for Clinton". Seriously, this behavior helps no one. It makes us all look like a bunch of angry jerks. And honestly, we need disaffected Sanders people like him to join movements outside of the democratic party, not drive them back to the party that screwed them.
First of all, doxxing and harassing people isn't cool, and I've seen a disturbing amount of that happen this year. Second of all, looking into the matter, THE GUY IS AN EX BERNIE SUPPORTER. Beyond that, he's a Bernie supporter who talked a lot on social media about being pissed off at the democrats for them rigging the primary.
He doesn't seem to be on board with Stein because he's buying into the fear of Trump getting elected if he doesn't support Hillary. While I don't agree with such an approach, okay. Whatever.
But honestly, how do greens seriously think he's going to react after having his social media accounts harassed by tons of Stein supporters calling him a plant and saying nasty things to him? Do they think he's going to vote green? Honestly, if that was the perception I was given of the green party and I was reluctantly supporting Clinton, I would be telling them "screw you guys, you just solidified my vote for Clinton". Seriously, this behavior helps no one. It makes us all look like a bunch of angry jerks. And honestly, we need disaffected Sanders people like him to join movements outside of the democratic party, not drive them back to the party that screwed them.
No, MGTOW isn't just about being childfree and not wanting a relationship...
So I ran into someone who claimed to be MGTOW and claimed to it was just about rejecting the LifeScript(TM) and doing their own thing. That while yes, some are sexist, the movement as a whole isn't or doesn't have to be. Yeah, no, it's actually sexist.
MGTOW is an acronym for a "manosphere" movement called "men going their own way." While they tend to reject traditional ways of living life like relationships, marriage, and children, it's quite a bit beyond that. It actually has a lot of sexist presumptions about women built into it, and generally tends to imply or explicitly state that they're parasites or succubi who are only in a relationship with you to use you and take advantage of you. They reject the concept of "love" and believe women just want to get easy access to money, and use their sexuality to do this.
I don't deny some women can be scummy people who do things MGTOW people like to talk about. I mean, we've all heard of the woman who got pregnant intentionally because she wanted a kid and thought that the man would warm up to it, etc. But MGTOW, like many other sexist "manosphere" movements like the red pill, men's rights activists, etc., tend to go beyond that. They demonize women in general and even use acronyms like "all women are like that" to make their points. They view relations between men and women through this skewed relationship in which the women wish to exploit men as if they're employers when I start going on about wage slavery and basic income. They think marriage is a way to trap men and that these institutions are made, or at least used by women, to exploit them and turn them into slaves.
I have no doubt that there are many disadvantages to relationships or that some women can be crappy. I don't even doubt that there are some issues and double standards with some aspects of our laws regarding marriage and divorce. They were designed for a time when men and women fulfilled certain roles, and while a lot has changed for women since then, the same obligations sometimes still persist for men. There are legitimate problems here. And even from my perspective that's critical of capitalism, I tend to view marriage and childbearing as an institution that traps people by increasing their overall financial dependence on employers (an important distinction here is that I define the problem as having to do with "wage slavery" though).
And, I'm going to be honest. I'm strongly "childfree" (I never want to have children for a multitude of reasons and the very idea is extremely unattractive), and I tend to have mixed views on marriage and relationships. I don't tend to involve myself in many relationships because I generally don't see a point of being involved in one for the sake of just being involved with one, and really have only had an interest in a handful of people throughout my life. I have very strict standards for dating, and I have no interest in dating 99% of women out there. All things considered, I buck the "LifeScript(TM)", I have no interest in what most people want on a lot of life milestones.
But you know what? I'm not a MGTOW, because I'm not a sexist jerk. I don't turn my rejection of the things above, and admission of some problems they point out, into a political statement that more or less says "women are evil succubi/parasites and I should run away as far as I can from them." Women are people, some are good, some are bad. They have needs and desires just like men do. And just because I don't desire a relationship with an overwhelming majority of them doesn't mean that they're bad, just that we're incompatible. Some of them definitely are bad, but the same can be said for men. People are people.
So, no, MGTOW isn't just about being childfree and rejecting relationships. It's much more ideological in nature and much more sexist. If you still don't believe me, check their website, which is full of sexism against women, and check their subreddit, which is even worse in my opinion. You can do the same thing as a MGTOW and be a much better person for it just by dropping the MGTOW bullcrap. You can not seek relationships or marriage and children to your heart's desire and the only reason you really need is "because I don't want those things", period, end of story. But when you subscribe to MGTOW, you're taking on these horrifying sexist attitudes toward women, which might have some legitimacy toward a subgroup of women while being unapplicable to women as a whole. And honestly, I see such a mentality as almost like a cult or toxic ideology. Reject the "manosphere", and all the sexist BS that goes with it. You don't need it and it just makes you look like a jerk.
MGTOW is an acronym for a "manosphere" movement called "men going their own way." While they tend to reject traditional ways of living life like relationships, marriage, and children, it's quite a bit beyond that. It actually has a lot of sexist presumptions about women built into it, and generally tends to imply or explicitly state that they're parasites or succubi who are only in a relationship with you to use you and take advantage of you. They reject the concept of "love" and believe women just want to get easy access to money, and use their sexuality to do this.
I don't deny some women can be scummy people who do things MGTOW people like to talk about. I mean, we've all heard of the woman who got pregnant intentionally because she wanted a kid and thought that the man would warm up to it, etc. But MGTOW, like many other sexist "manosphere" movements like the red pill, men's rights activists, etc., tend to go beyond that. They demonize women in general and even use acronyms like "all women are like that" to make their points. They view relations between men and women through this skewed relationship in which the women wish to exploit men as if they're employers when I start going on about wage slavery and basic income. They think marriage is a way to trap men and that these institutions are made, or at least used by women, to exploit them and turn them into slaves.
I have no doubt that there are many disadvantages to relationships or that some women can be crappy. I don't even doubt that there are some issues and double standards with some aspects of our laws regarding marriage and divorce. They were designed for a time when men and women fulfilled certain roles, and while a lot has changed for women since then, the same obligations sometimes still persist for men. There are legitimate problems here. And even from my perspective that's critical of capitalism, I tend to view marriage and childbearing as an institution that traps people by increasing their overall financial dependence on employers (an important distinction here is that I define the problem as having to do with "wage slavery" though).
And, I'm going to be honest. I'm strongly "childfree" (I never want to have children for a multitude of reasons and the very idea is extremely unattractive), and I tend to have mixed views on marriage and relationships. I don't tend to involve myself in many relationships because I generally don't see a point of being involved in one for the sake of just being involved with one, and really have only had an interest in a handful of people throughout my life. I have very strict standards for dating, and I have no interest in dating 99% of women out there. All things considered, I buck the "LifeScript(TM)", I have no interest in what most people want on a lot of life milestones.
But you know what? I'm not a MGTOW, because I'm not a sexist jerk. I don't turn my rejection of the things above, and admission of some problems they point out, into a political statement that more or less says "women are evil succubi/parasites and I should run away as far as I can from them." Women are people, some are good, some are bad. They have needs and desires just like men do. And just because I don't desire a relationship with an overwhelming majority of them doesn't mean that they're bad, just that we're incompatible. Some of them definitely are bad, but the same can be said for men. People are people.
So, no, MGTOW isn't just about being childfree and rejecting relationships. It's much more ideological in nature and much more sexist. If you still don't believe me, check their website, which is full of sexism against women, and check their subreddit, which is even worse in my opinion. You can do the same thing as a MGTOW and be a much better person for it just by dropping the MGTOW bullcrap. You can not seek relationships or marriage and children to your heart's desire and the only reason you really need is "because I don't want those things", period, end of story. But when you subscribe to MGTOW, you're taking on these horrifying sexist attitudes toward women, which might have some legitimacy toward a subgroup of women while being unapplicable to women as a whole. And honestly, I see such a mentality as almost like a cult or toxic ideology. Reject the "manosphere", and all the sexist BS that goes with it. You don't need it and it just makes you look like a jerk.
Jill Stein and basic income clarification
On the recent town hall on CNN Jill Stein clarified her position on basic income. (By the way, she did very well at this town hall in my opinion). She said that she sees it more as a visionary goal and that it's not something she plans on implementing. Some people are disappointed by this, but I figured as much. She never really put it at the forefront of her campaign like green jobs and student loan debt. Still, I'm pleased with this, and a lite form of decentralized socialism, are in the platform.
Look, I don't expect all my problems to be solved in 4 years, and change to be so swift that society looks radically different in just 4 years. I understand progress takes decades to accomplish, and I think just getting the idea out there and raising awareness for what our society can be rather than what it is, is good enough. Stein still takes enough steps where I think we will be in a much better place in just 4-8 years, and I would be happy for a step in that direction.
Heck, as someone who doesn't expect her to win, my reasons for voting for her are more visionary than anything. I have said it time and time again, the democratic party is stubborn and lives for the status quo, it needs to be pressured to move to the left, and I believe third parties are an important safety valve through which to put pressure on them. And we need to think big.
The reason I don't settle for the democrats' approach to "incremental change" is because it has a "cable company runaround" (mildly NSFW due to South Park) flavor to it. It's not that their style of incremental change is a necessity here, it's that the democratic party doesn't want to try and has no interest in moving to the left or seriously considering these kinds of proposals. It's too busy sucking up that sweet sweet wall street money and only pretending to care about us. This election, it has done nothing but condescend to us, tell us we can't get what we want, and bully us into settling for less because we have no other viable choice. It has its agenda, it's doing what it wants to do, and we better get on board or else. This isn't real incremental change. They're giving us the runaround.
That being said, yes, it is disappointing that Stein isn't going to explicitly focus on basic income, but considering how she's more of a visionary candidate than a practical one with a real chance of winning, vision is more important than substance. I've said this from the beginning. As such, as far as I'm concerned, the greens should think big and pressure the system to moving in a positive direction and making real positive change. I do want to see basic income implemented some day, but I don't realistically see it being a hot topic for a good 10-20 years or so, after whoever we are voting for now has left office. Still, we can begin to build groundwork for it now, and it starts with a progressive movement toward more popular goals like universal healthcare.
Look, I don't expect all my problems to be solved in 4 years, and change to be so swift that society looks radically different in just 4 years. I understand progress takes decades to accomplish, and I think just getting the idea out there and raising awareness for what our society can be rather than what it is, is good enough. Stein still takes enough steps where I think we will be in a much better place in just 4-8 years, and I would be happy for a step in that direction.
Heck, as someone who doesn't expect her to win, my reasons for voting for her are more visionary than anything. I have said it time and time again, the democratic party is stubborn and lives for the status quo, it needs to be pressured to move to the left, and I believe third parties are an important safety valve through which to put pressure on them. And we need to think big.
The reason I don't settle for the democrats' approach to "incremental change" is because it has a "cable company runaround" (mildly NSFW due to South Park) flavor to it. It's not that their style of incremental change is a necessity here, it's that the democratic party doesn't want to try and has no interest in moving to the left or seriously considering these kinds of proposals. It's too busy sucking up that sweet sweet wall street money and only pretending to care about us. This election, it has done nothing but condescend to us, tell us we can't get what we want, and bully us into settling for less because we have no other viable choice. It has its agenda, it's doing what it wants to do, and we better get on board or else. This isn't real incremental change. They're giving us the runaround.
That being said, yes, it is disappointing that Stein isn't going to explicitly focus on basic income, but considering how she's more of a visionary candidate than a practical one with a real chance of winning, vision is more important than substance. I've said this from the beginning. As such, as far as I'm concerned, the greens should think big and pressure the system to moving in a positive direction and making real positive change. I do want to see basic income implemented some day, but I don't realistically see it being a hot topic for a good 10-20 years or so, after whoever we are voting for now has left office. Still, we can begin to build groundwork for it now, and it starts with a progressive movement toward more popular goals like universal healthcare.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
So let's talk about how badly Trump is imploding the republican party
I'm going to hold off on doing my normal election update for now, I might do it in the near future or put it off until there's more data. I want to talk about larger changes to the electoral college system going on here. Not just what's going on this year (although maybe some of that), but what will happen if trends continue. The republicans are in a downward spiral. They are losing ground this election badly. States that were once swing are turning into democratic strongholds, and states that were republican strongholds are becoming swing states or at risk for doing so in the future. It's hard to know if trends will continue or if this is just a one time think because Trump, but I've been noticing since 2008 it's been very difficult for a republican to win the presidency these days.
Let's look of some polling averages that my regular election updates won't necessarily cover since I typically focus on those with margins under 3-4% or so.
First, let's look at the current polling averages of some "swing states" that aren't even considered swing states any more.
Colorado - 10.8% Clinton
New Hampshire - 8.2% Clinton
Pennsylvania - 9.2% Clinton
Virginia - 11.2% Clinton
Wisconsin - 9.4% Clinton
Now, let's look at the trends these states have had in the past.
Colorado - Typically known to flip either way, but before 2008, was generally more red than blue. This state seems to have realigned itself along democratic lines in recent election cycles. Even then this is the first election it's up by double digits.
New Hampshire - Looking at it in context, New Hampshire isn't doing anything unusual. While in the Bush era they were more swing, they've been more consistent democratic voters since 2008, and they've voted by fairly large margins before here.
Pennsylvania - As I've said earlier posts, PA is a swing state in name only. Its margins are sometimes within swing state levels, but it's reliably blue in presidential elections. This is not out of the ordinary here.
Virginia - Virginia has been reliably red until 2008. Since then, it's become more of a swing state, and this election, it's more or less solidly blue. This is a recent development, since I seem to remember last election it was the one state I was unsure of in my electoral projections, and the one state I actually got wrong. To see it up by double digits is a surprise.
Wisconsin - Wisconsin was really only swing during the Bush era, and in the Obama era, it was more strongly blue. There are no real changes going on this time.
So, we're not seeing huge changes in these states this year for the most part, although some states like Colorado and Virginia,which were former swing states, are turning more blue.
This is bad enough, since the republicans need a lot of these states to win. After all, the democrats start out with more electoral votes going into the election, where it's like they start halfway to the finish line to begin with. But wait, it gets worse for the republicans. Let's look at what's going on in more traditionally red states.
Arizona - Trump 0.3%
Georgia - Clinton 0.3%
Indiana - Trump 8.6%
Kansas - Trump 11.0%
Louisiana - Trump 12.0%
Mississippi - Trump 9.0%
Missouri - Trump 5.3%
North Carolina - Clinton 2.0%
South Carolina - Trump 3.5%
Texas - Trump 8.4%
Utah - 10.5%
I mean, if you look at these guys' voting records, you can do that here to your heart's desire, you can see these are solidly red states. They might have gone blue once or twice, maybe in 1996 or 2008, which were bad years for republicans, but other than that, when I think of them, I think red.
But as we can see, some of them are now REALLY swing state status, with some like Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina being included in my electoral analyses, and the others are well within similar margins of other swing states mentioned above. Missouri has weaker margins for Trump than any of the five states mentioned above. South Carolina has little polling data, but what exists shows questionable margins too. Indiana and TEXAS have weaker margins than four of those five states (Texas is the biggest reliably red state there is). Mississippi, Kansas, Utah, and Louisiana now have similar margins to the most strongly blue states on that list.
It's hard to know if there's a long term trend here or if the people really just hate Trump, I think it's a combination of both. I mean, the republicans have been falling apart since 2008 and just aren't recovering, and they're just turning into increasingly worse versions of themselves like they're Majin Buu or something (that's a dragonball z reference for non anime fans). Even with the democrats being unpopular and not really having their act together this time, they're still winning by these insane margins. Some projections, including mine, have Clinton winning the election comfortably with no trouble at this point. And traditionally swing states are now polling just as strongly blue as much of the south, including republican strongholds like Texas.
If this trend continues and isn't a one time thing caused by Trump just being that awful of a candidate, then the republicans are dying out as they exist. It's hard to know which way it will go. On the one hand there is a clear generational gap in politics with modern conservatives primarily appealing to older voters and largely alienating younger voters. On the other hand, Trump is an extraordinarily weak candidate and someone else could have likely been a stronger opponent of Clinton's. Regardless, considering how much the GOP would have to dig themselves out of the hole to win the electoral college if this were just an ordinary post 2008 election, they still would be screwed. For the south to be just as in reach for the democrats as traditional swing states are to the republicans is just embarrassing and shows how badly the party is doing on a national level. The only reason they hold power locally is gerrymandering, voter suppression, and low voter turnout. When everyone turns out in presidential elections, the democrats wipe the floor with them. I expect them to fall apart or change their ideology significantly to remain relevant in the next few election cycles.
Let's look of some polling averages that my regular election updates won't necessarily cover since I typically focus on those with margins under 3-4% or so.
First, let's look at the current polling averages of some "swing states" that aren't even considered swing states any more.
Colorado - 10.8% Clinton
New Hampshire - 8.2% Clinton
Pennsylvania - 9.2% Clinton
Virginia - 11.2% Clinton
Wisconsin - 9.4% Clinton
Now, let's look at the trends these states have had in the past.
Colorado - Typically known to flip either way, but before 2008, was generally more red than blue. This state seems to have realigned itself along democratic lines in recent election cycles. Even then this is the first election it's up by double digits.
New Hampshire - Looking at it in context, New Hampshire isn't doing anything unusual. While in the Bush era they were more swing, they've been more consistent democratic voters since 2008, and they've voted by fairly large margins before here.
Pennsylvania - As I've said earlier posts, PA is a swing state in name only. Its margins are sometimes within swing state levels, but it's reliably blue in presidential elections. This is not out of the ordinary here.
Virginia - Virginia has been reliably red until 2008. Since then, it's become more of a swing state, and this election, it's more or less solidly blue. This is a recent development, since I seem to remember last election it was the one state I was unsure of in my electoral projections, and the one state I actually got wrong. To see it up by double digits is a surprise.
Wisconsin - Wisconsin was really only swing during the Bush era, and in the Obama era, it was more strongly blue. There are no real changes going on this time.
So, we're not seeing huge changes in these states this year for the most part, although some states like Colorado and Virginia,which were former swing states, are turning more blue.
This is bad enough, since the republicans need a lot of these states to win. After all, the democrats start out with more electoral votes going into the election, where it's like they start halfway to the finish line to begin with. But wait, it gets worse for the republicans. Let's look at what's going on in more traditionally red states.
Arizona - Trump 0.3%
Georgia - Clinton 0.3%
Indiana - Trump 8.6%
Kansas - Trump 11.0%
Louisiana - Trump 12.0%
Mississippi - Trump 9.0%
Missouri - Trump 5.3%
North Carolina - Clinton 2.0%
South Carolina - Trump 3.5%
Texas - Trump 8.4%
Utah - 10.5%
I mean, if you look at these guys' voting records, you can do that here to your heart's desire, you can see these are solidly red states. They might have gone blue once or twice, maybe in 1996 or 2008, which were bad years for republicans, but other than that, when I think of them, I think red.
But as we can see, some of them are now REALLY swing state status, with some like Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina being included in my electoral analyses, and the others are well within similar margins of other swing states mentioned above. Missouri has weaker margins for Trump than any of the five states mentioned above. South Carolina has little polling data, but what exists shows questionable margins too. Indiana and TEXAS have weaker margins than four of those five states (Texas is the biggest reliably red state there is). Mississippi, Kansas, Utah, and Louisiana now have similar margins to the most strongly blue states on that list.
It's hard to know if there's a long term trend here or if the people really just hate Trump, I think it's a combination of both. I mean, the republicans have been falling apart since 2008 and just aren't recovering, and they're just turning into increasingly worse versions of themselves like they're Majin Buu or something (that's a dragonball z reference for non anime fans). Even with the democrats being unpopular and not really having their act together this time, they're still winning by these insane margins. Some projections, including mine, have Clinton winning the election comfortably with no trouble at this point. And traditionally swing states are now polling just as strongly blue as much of the south, including republican strongholds like Texas.
If this trend continues and isn't a one time thing caused by Trump just being that awful of a candidate, then the republicans are dying out as they exist. It's hard to know which way it will go. On the one hand there is a clear generational gap in politics with modern conservatives primarily appealing to older voters and largely alienating younger voters. On the other hand, Trump is an extraordinarily weak candidate and someone else could have likely been a stronger opponent of Clinton's. Regardless, considering how much the GOP would have to dig themselves out of the hole to win the electoral college if this were just an ordinary post 2008 election, they still would be screwed. For the south to be just as in reach for the democrats as traditional swing states are to the republicans is just embarrassing and shows how badly the party is doing on a national level. The only reason they hold power locally is gerrymandering, voter suppression, and low voter turnout. When everyone turns out in presidential elections, the democrats wipe the floor with them. I expect them to fall apart or change their ideology significantly to remain relevant in the next few election cycles.
The US is getting rid of private prisons, yay!
I won't spend too much time on this since this isn't an issue I discuss deeply and only have a surface understanding of, but a recent study came out citing safety concerns at private prisons and US just agreed to phase out the use of them.
I really think it's stupid we even considered the idea of using them. I mean, the conditions in those prisons are more or less akin to slavery and corporations basically used them for cheap labor. It also gave the government incentives to lock people up, which the corporations then used for profit. It's really a horrifying concept.
Either way, we're getting rid of them, which is a good thing, and I just felt like I should write a small something on it.
I really think it's stupid we even considered the idea of using them. I mean, the conditions in those prisons are more or less akin to slavery and corporations basically used them for cheap labor. It also gave the government incentives to lock people up, which the corporations then used for profit. It's really a horrifying concept.
Either way, we're getting rid of them, which is a good thing, and I just felt like I should write a small something on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)