I'm going to be honest. We don't have proof either way here. It's just news articles and speculation. However, Julian Assange has implied that DNC staffers may have been the ones to leak the emails. Some people are claiming the DNC has made up the Russian spin to spook people into not paying attention to the leak, claiming that they're trying to influence our elections. As Jill Stein would say, this is exactly what the DNC has been caught doing.
However, on the flip side, the article I linked above implies Assange has links to Russian media.
Who knows what the truth is. Make up your own minds. I'm just discussing it since I covered it before.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Heads up: the shills are out in full force
Over the last 48 hours or so since the end of the convention, the online atmosphere has changed significantly. Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are all being inundated with flagrant Hillary supporters. Now, some of these guys are probably just former Bernie people who decided to suck it up and vote for Hillary. And some of them were probably Hillary supporters all along. But I think there's much more going on than that. I suspect these sites are being invaded by paid shills.
There is a pro Hillary superpac out there known as Correct the Record. A few months ago, they openly put forward $1 million to debate "Bernie Bros" and others who attack Hillary Clinton on social media sites and Reddit, and have possibly ramped up their spending post convention.
These guys have been on Reddit and the like for a while. I've come across a few of them before, and they generally posted all this anti Bernie, pro Clinton propaganda and tenaciously argue with anyone who disagrees with them. Well, in the last 2 days, the number of them appears to have increased exponentially. r/politics and a few left wing subs have been obviously inundated, and it's unclear how far they've spread. I can't comment on exact numbers, I'm only going by the larger general presence of these guys I've perceived in debates and the like. The worst part is, you can point out that they are, in fact shills, and these subs will ban you for doing so. Some of them have legitimate rules that make sense in context, but others just seem to be taking sides.
If you're wondering how to figure out if someone is a shill, I would say, look at their posting history. Look at what subs they frequent, and what they post. It might also help to see how new their account is, although people with old and inactive accounts may sell them to shilling organizations. Often times, these shills will spend 90% or more of their time pushing pro Hillary and anti everyone else articles on various subs. The one I came across was posting pro Hillary, anti Jill Stein, and all these posts about Russia and Trump to many different subreddits at once. They would submit upwards of 50-100 links a day, maybe 10-20 unique links, and they would obviously be trying to promote a certain candidate. They also argue tenaciously, defending Clinton against any attacks real or perceived. In doing so, they may tend to distract you from their main points and make you defend a ton of baseless accusations and propaganda. They also tend to promote the same old narratives, and it seems quite clear that they're copying and pasting off a script. They will argue you are being selfish or entitled or privileged. They will say that a vote not for Clinton is a vote for Trump. They will use the same old lingo you always get like "but there's so much at stake" or "the most progressive platform ever" or tend to argue that their opinions are just "reality." The buzz words are the dead giveaway because it makes me get the impression they're reading off of a script. They will scare you with supreme court justices and how the republicans will control the government from anywhere between 20-50 years. Again the age of an account is also a good indication since many of these guys make new accounts and just get to spamming pro Clinton stuff, but again, considering account selling, older accounts can be repurposed as shilling accounts too. If you have a long inactive account that randomly starts exhibiting the behavior above, it may be a paid shill account.
It should be noted these methods aren't fool proof. Some people are just very passionate about politics, so not everyone who fits this criteria may be a shill. But given the change in atmosphere the last few days, a lot of them probably are.
What these guys are trying to do is snuff the rest of the Bernie movement out. The holdouts, the dissenters. Just like they ignored the protests going on outside of the DNC to show unity, they're flooding the internet in Sanders' supporters largest strongholds to deunify us, to shut us down, to snuff us out, and hope that through a massive, aggressive, propaganda campaign, they can make us shut up, fall in behind Hillary, and submit them.
I suggest we double down in our resolve. If the Clinton camp so desperately wants our votes they'll try to astroturf a whole website, then we need to double down in our refusal to bow to Clinton. I likely would have supported Clinton, if not for the shady primary tactics, blatant astroturfing, and the whole DNC leaks thing, for the record. I'm more against her than anything because I feel like the entire campaign has been focused on bullying people who disagree with her into submission and rigging the system by any means necessary. It's sickening. I refuse to support a party who treats people like me in that way, and I would recommend like minded people to not give into them either. To vote for them in November, after all this crap that has happened, is to give them exactly what they want. Don't give it to them. You're just going to reward these tactics.
There is a pro Hillary superpac out there known as Correct the Record. A few months ago, they openly put forward $1 million to debate "Bernie Bros" and others who attack Hillary Clinton on social media sites and Reddit, and have possibly ramped up their spending post convention.
These guys have been on Reddit and the like for a while. I've come across a few of them before, and they generally posted all this anti Bernie, pro Clinton propaganda and tenaciously argue with anyone who disagrees with them. Well, in the last 2 days, the number of them appears to have increased exponentially. r/politics and a few left wing subs have been obviously inundated, and it's unclear how far they've spread. I can't comment on exact numbers, I'm only going by the larger general presence of these guys I've perceived in debates and the like. The worst part is, you can point out that they are, in fact shills, and these subs will ban you for doing so. Some of them have legitimate rules that make sense in context, but others just seem to be taking sides.
If you're wondering how to figure out if someone is a shill, I would say, look at their posting history. Look at what subs they frequent, and what they post. It might also help to see how new their account is, although people with old and inactive accounts may sell them to shilling organizations. Often times, these shills will spend 90% or more of their time pushing pro Hillary and anti everyone else articles on various subs. The one I came across was posting pro Hillary, anti Jill Stein, and all these posts about Russia and Trump to many different subreddits at once. They would submit upwards of 50-100 links a day, maybe 10-20 unique links, and they would obviously be trying to promote a certain candidate. They also argue tenaciously, defending Clinton against any attacks real or perceived. In doing so, they may tend to distract you from their main points and make you defend a ton of baseless accusations and propaganda. They also tend to promote the same old narratives, and it seems quite clear that they're copying and pasting off a script. They will argue you are being selfish or entitled or privileged. They will say that a vote not for Clinton is a vote for Trump. They will use the same old lingo you always get like "but there's so much at stake" or "the most progressive platform ever" or tend to argue that their opinions are just "reality." The buzz words are the dead giveaway because it makes me get the impression they're reading off of a script. They will scare you with supreme court justices and how the republicans will control the government from anywhere between 20-50 years. Again the age of an account is also a good indication since many of these guys make new accounts and just get to spamming pro Clinton stuff, but again, considering account selling, older accounts can be repurposed as shilling accounts too. If you have a long inactive account that randomly starts exhibiting the behavior above, it may be a paid shill account.
It should be noted these methods aren't fool proof. Some people are just very passionate about politics, so not everyone who fits this criteria may be a shill. But given the change in atmosphere the last few days, a lot of them probably are.
What these guys are trying to do is snuff the rest of the Bernie movement out. The holdouts, the dissenters. Just like they ignored the protests going on outside of the DNC to show unity, they're flooding the internet in Sanders' supporters largest strongholds to deunify us, to shut us down, to snuff us out, and hope that through a massive, aggressive, propaganda campaign, they can make us shut up, fall in behind Hillary, and submit them.
I suggest we double down in our resolve. If the Clinton camp so desperately wants our votes they'll try to astroturf a whole website, then we need to double down in our refusal to bow to Clinton. I likely would have supported Clinton, if not for the shady primary tactics, blatant astroturfing, and the whole DNC leaks thing, for the record. I'm more against her than anything because I feel like the entire campaign has been focused on bullying people who disagree with her into submission and rigging the system by any means necessary. It's sickening. I refuse to support a party who treats people like me in that way, and I would recommend like minded people to not give into them either. To vote for them in November, after all this crap that has happened, is to give them exactly what they want. Don't give it to them. You're just going to reward these tactics.
Friday, July 29, 2016
How much are third parties impacting the election?
Okay, as we know, we hear it all the time. Third party candidates are spoilers. They're going to cost Clinton the election, blah blah blah. But is it really true? Let's examine the data.
Trump vs. Clinton
As of now (July 29), Trump and Clinton are effectively tied at 44.3%.
This means about 11.4% aren't being counted, and it seems strange there are so many undecideds. These guys may be looking at third parties, or they could be staying home. The best way to find out is to look at the polls with third parties included.
Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson
Here, Trump has 39.6%, Clinton has 39.2%, and Johnson has 8.6%. Johnson has effectively drained about 5% from each candidate, with Trump only ahead by 0.4%, which is very negligible in polling. Still, even with Johnson included, we're seeing about 12.6% refusing to respond. Unless Stein has a lot of support, that 11-13% or so who refuse to support any candidate. Support for Johnson seemed to directly come out of both candidates, and it did so about equally.
Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein
Here, Clinton has 40.4%, Trump has 40.2%, Johnson has 7.2%, and Stein has 3%. In this scenario, Clinton is ahead by 0.2% (negligible), and once again, the two parties seemed to take about 4% from each candidate respectively. Johnson is down 1.4%, but both Clinton and Trump are up almost a point from the three way scenario. Here, we see the least undecideds, about 9.2%, so we see a drop of about 2-3 points in this category when Stein is included.
Still, all in all, the net results are about the same for Clinton and Trump, and while third party candidates are taking from them in some ways, they're doing so pretty much equally between the two candidates. You might see Trump or Clinton up a few tenths of one percent, but the overall impact on the election is arguably negligible. This is, admittedly, at the national level. Things might play out differently in various swing states. So just to be safe let's check how things are working in some of the larger, closer swing states.
Florida
2 way - 0.3% Trump
4 way - 0.2% Trump
All in all, the presence of Johnson and Stein make a pretty negligible difference.
New Hampshire
2 way - 3.7% Clinton
4 way - Tie
I wasn't going to bother with New Hampshire since it's such a tiny state, but based on my election scenarios I've been releasing, New Hampshire could be the state that decides the election if the election becomes close enough where a single state flipping is essential (say, my Trump +3 and +4 scenarios).
Here we see a much larger difference. However, looking at the data carefully, we see that the 2 way has way more polls (data points) to consider, whereas there is only one poll for the 4 way. Comparing the data directly, since the same polling agency had a 2 way and a 4 way scenario for that day, we see that the 2 way was +2 Clinton, whereas the 4 way was a tie. So we can argue here, Clinton loses 2 points due to Johnson and Stein in net. Still, there's only one data point to compare here and that's not good for larger trends. Polls have margins of error. They are not accurate in and of themselves. This is why some states have polls ranging from like +6 Trump to +9 Clinton. I mean, individual polls can be wrong. So while I will point out there is a trend here based on limited data that suggests that Clinton lost a point or two here, it's kind of hard to say how this will actually impact the election.
North Carolina
2 way - 2% Clinton
4 way - 2.7% Clinton
Ohio
2 way - 0.8% Clinton
4 way - 1.4% Clinton
Similar story as Florida and North Carolina. The effects are negligible and well within the margin of error.
Pennsylvania
2 way - 4.4% Clinton
4 way - 3% Clinton
Here we see a larger difference, with Clinton losing 1.4% over the introduction of Johnson and Stein, but I would still argue this is well within margins of error. If you recall my analysis from the other day, Pennsylvania was at 3.2%, so Clinton's lead actually increased. A single poll either way can have a difference of a point or so, and the only reason the 4 way has less of a lead is because one Quinnipiac poll leaned more strongly toward Trump, and because they averaged four polls for the four way vs. five polls for the two way. When you have four pro Clinton and one pro Trump poll vs three pro Clinton vs one more strongly pro Trump poll, that will make a difference in the overall averages. As such, this may still be attributable to just the fact that polls have margins of errors. We've seen states and election scenarios flip dramatically in my election analyses over new polls coming out and shifting entire scenarios, with candidates losing like 30 electoral votes because a handful of new polls came out that shifted the averages.
Virginia
2 way - 5.3% Clinton
4 way - 5.0% Clinton
Nothing particularly interesting going on here either.
Conclusion
All in all, despite the hyperventilating from rabid Clinton supporters, there's little evidence that third parties are really causing a single candidate to have a massive deficit that could realistically swing the outcome of the election. Most of the differences third parties are causing are fairly negligible and come down to less than one percentage point all things considered. There are scenarios in individual states in which this may not be the case, but even this can be at least partially attributed to mere polling errors and/or lack of reliable and consistent polling in those states. After all, polls have errors. They can be off by as much as 3-5 points, or even more if you take into consideration the possible error of both candidates. You only have a good idea what's going on looking at trends and averages from many polls, and if there isn't a lot of data, or there's less data in one situation than there is in another, that can make a difference in and of itself. As such, I have yet to see strong evidence that will suggest that third parties are influencing the election either way.
At best, we might see them have an effect if we have, say, a repeat of the 2000 election where the entire thing comes down to a handful of votes in one state. This could theoretically happen in my Trump +3 or Trump + 4 scenarios where the entire election could come down to New Hampshire or Pennsylvania or something, but that is pretty much like a worst case scenario for Clinton. All in all, assuming the current data is realistic and unreliable, it is impossible for such minor polling differences to have a significant effect on the race that will dramatically change the course of the election. You might lose a really close state or two MAYBE, but considering how far Clinton is ahead in the electoral college it won't make a difference.
Trump vs. Clinton
As of now (July 29), Trump and Clinton are effectively tied at 44.3%.
This means about 11.4% aren't being counted, and it seems strange there are so many undecideds. These guys may be looking at third parties, or they could be staying home. The best way to find out is to look at the polls with third parties included.
Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson
Here, Trump has 39.6%, Clinton has 39.2%, and Johnson has 8.6%. Johnson has effectively drained about 5% from each candidate, with Trump only ahead by 0.4%, which is very negligible in polling. Still, even with Johnson included, we're seeing about 12.6% refusing to respond. Unless Stein has a lot of support, that 11-13% or so who refuse to support any candidate. Support for Johnson seemed to directly come out of both candidates, and it did so about equally.
Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein
Here, Clinton has 40.4%, Trump has 40.2%, Johnson has 7.2%, and Stein has 3%. In this scenario, Clinton is ahead by 0.2% (negligible), and once again, the two parties seemed to take about 4% from each candidate respectively. Johnson is down 1.4%, but both Clinton and Trump are up almost a point from the three way scenario. Here, we see the least undecideds, about 9.2%, so we see a drop of about 2-3 points in this category when Stein is included.
Still, all in all, the net results are about the same for Clinton and Trump, and while third party candidates are taking from them in some ways, they're doing so pretty much equally between the two candidates. You might see Trump or Clinton up a few tenths of one percent, but the overall impact on the election is arguably negligible. This is, admittedly, at the national level. Things might play out differently in various swing states. So just to be safe let's check how things are working in some of the larger, closer swing states.
Florida
2 way - 0.3% Trump
4 way - 0.2% Trump
All in all, the presence of Johnson and Stein make a pretty negligible difference.
New Hampshire
2 way - 3.7% Clinton
4 way - Tie
I wasn't going to bother with New Hampshire since it's such a tiny state, but based on my election scenarios I've been releasing, New Hampshire could be the state that decides the election if the election becomes close enough where a single state flipping is essential (say, my Trump +3 and +4 scenarios).
Here we see a much larger difference. However, looking at the data carefully, we see that the 2 way has way more polls (data points) to consider, whereas there is only one poll for the 4 way. Comparing the data directly, since the same polling agency had a 2 way and a 4 way scenario for that day, we see that the 2 way was +2 Clinton, whereas the 4 way was a tie. So we can argue here, Clinton loses 2 points due to Johnson and Stein in net. Still, there's only one data point to compare here and that's not good for larger trends. Polls have margins of error. They are not accurate in and of themselves. This is why some states have polls ranging from like +6 Trump to +9 Clinton. I mean, individual polls can be wrong. So while I will point out there is a trend here based on limited data that suggests that Clinton lost a point or two here, it's kind of hard to say how this will actually impact the election.
North Carolina
2 way - 2% Clinton
4 way - 2.7% Clinton
Ohio
2 way - 0.8% Clinton
4 way - 1.4% Clinton
Similar story as Florida and North Carolina. The effects are negligible and well within the margin of error.
Pennsylvania
2 way - 4.4% Clinton
4 way - 3% Clinton
Here we see a larger difference, with Clinton losing 1.4% over the introduction of Johnson and Stein, but I would still argue this is well within margins of error. If you recall my analysis from the other day, Pennsylvania was at 3.2%, so Clinton's lead actually increased. A single poll either way can have a difference of a point or so, and the only reason the 4 way has less of a lead is because one Quinnipiac poll leaned more strongly toward Trump, and because they averaged four polls for the four way vs. five polls for the two way. When you have four pro Clinton and one pro Trump poll vs three pro Clinton vs one more strongly pro Trump poll, that will make a difference in the overall averages. As such, this may still be attributable to just the fact that polls have margins of errors. We've seen states and election scenarios flip dramatically in my election analyses over new polls coming out and shifting entire scenarios, with candidates losing like 30 electoral votes because a handful of new polls came out that shifted the averages.
Virginia
2 way - 5.3% Clinton
4 way - 5.0% Clinton
Nothing particularly interesting going on here either.
Conclusion
All in all, despite the hyperventilating from rabid Clinton supporters, there's little evidence that third parties are really causing a single candidate to have a massive deficit that could realistically swing the outcome of the election. Most of the differences third parties are causing are fairly negligible and come down to less than one percentage point all things considered. There are scenarios in individual states in which this may not be the case, but even this can be at least partially attributed to mere polling errors and/or lack of reliable and consistent polling in those states. After all, polls have errors. They can be off by as much as 3-5 points, or even more if you take into consideration the possible error of both candidates. You only have a good idea what's going on looking at trends and averages from many polls, and if there isn't a lot of data, or there's less data in one situation than there is in another, that can make a difference in and of itself. As such, I have yet to see strong evidence that will suggest that third parties are influencing the election either way.
At best, we might see them have an effect if we have, say, a repeat of the 2000 election where the entire thing comes down to a handful of votes in one state. This could theoretically happen in my Trump +3 or Trump + 4 scenarios where the entire election could come down to New Hampshire or Pennsylvania or something, but that is pretty much like a worst case scenario for Clinton. All in all, assuming the current data is realistic and unreliable, it is impossible for such minor polling differences to have a significant effect on the race that will dramatically change the course of the election. You might lose a really close state or two MAYBE, but considering how far Clinton is ahead in the electoral college it won't make a difference.
Post convention analysis of both parties
So, I decided I should do a more level headed analysis now that the conventions are over. I talked about the conventions a lot on here, giving day by day analyses, but now I want to bring it all together and give my general thoughts on both parties and what they offer.
Republicans
The RNC came off as strange to me. It almost had very much a creepy fascist type vibe to it. They pointed to a world in turmoil, with threats coming out of the woodwork everywhere, both at home and abroad, and Trump came off as the savior. The person who will bring order out of chaos and who will deal with all threats, foreign and domestic. At home, he's the "law and order" candidate, following in the footsteps of Nixon. Abroad, he was seen as the strong man who will keep us safe
Even worse, while it is expected that Trump and the Republicans would attack Hillary Clinton, the hate and vitriol was just too intense for my tastes. This isn't the same vibe I get from Bernie supporters by the way, who are just pissed off at a broken corrupt system that isn't listening to them. I felt like....a kind of mob mentality here. Especially with Christie's speech, which seemed to come only a step or two from burning an effigy of Clinton on stage.
The republicans seem totally out of touch with reality, out of touch with the world, and they seem angry and running to authoritarianism. I can see why people liken Trump to Hitler. While invoking Godwin's law might be a bit excessive, the whole thing really does give a creepy vibe similar to his rise to power in the 1930s.
The republicans had some good points at times though. They criticized the state of the economy, and while I don't think Trump has the slightest idea how to fix it, it seems like the republicans at least recognize something is wrong and that we need to fix it. I don't think they understand the actual problems and how to solve them though. Nor do the elites care, since their brand of trickle down economics got us into this mess in a lot of ways.
So, that's my opinion of the republicans. They seem to be driven by fear of enemies that may or may not exist, hate, and frustration with the economy. And Trump packages himself as their savior, saying things like "only I can fix it." As I said, it's actually quite creepy.
Democrats
The democrats seemed better than the republicans, but I still wasn't impressed. Clinton and the DNC acted like they wanted to win everyone over and unite the party, but all in all, it just seems so fake. Sanders supporters were largely ignored, outside of a few speeches, and even then calling Clinton a progressive who hears our concerns is a joke, considering how she's your run of the mill democratic centrist.
Sanders supporters were, for all intents and purposes, largely ignored. We were lectured and condescended to on the first night, and largely ignored for the rest of the convention. I've heard stories on the internet of subtle ways that Sanders supporters were largely silenced where they couldn't cause a fuss. And of course, the protests outside only got minor coverage at best (they were supposedly thousands strong).
The entire thing reminded me of the Hunger games. A choreographed spectacle intended to appeal to the masses, but which underplays and ignores a major undercurrent of general discontent. They tried to appear more united than they were.
Most groups that were appealed to were done so in a way to dig Trump and maybe win over republicans. There was way too much religion in it. Heck there was about as much talk of faith and God as you would expect from the republicans maybe. Don't quote me on that, I didn't measure or anything. There was a large focus on illegal immigrants and the disabled, which was a direct screw you to Trump in a way. And all in all, while there was some focus on substance, the entire thing felt like a huge emotional appeal. They spent more time trying to humanize Clinton and tell people how much she cares about children and families and women and blah blah blah.
As a childfree white male progressive left wing atheist, the entire thing just didn't appeal to me. Again, as I've said in other posts, it's not bad they tried to appeal to a lot of these different groups. I mean, the democratic party is diverse, diversity is good, and the whole world and its problems don't revolve around me. I understand that. But all in all, they did little to really push a progressive economic message, and when they tried, it just sounded so fake because Clinton's style of "progressivism" is quite moderate. I mean the more I process what was said, the more I recognize that they just gave us rhetoric with no real substance to back it up.
Generally speaking, they ran to the right, tried to win over disaffected republicans, tried to appeal to their base on issues other than economics, when they tried to discuss economics they watered it down to the center to appeal to the centrists and even the center right, and the left was largely snubbed and alienated. As I said, it was this Hunger Games-esque spectacle that keeps people distracted and passive while downplaying the undercurrents of division and discontent within the party. They went on with business as usual hoping that the Bernie people would just shut up or go away.
Conclusion
All in all, the democrats were way better than the republicans, but all in all, neither impressed me. The republicans came off as fundamentally out of touch with reality and their message even scared me because it reeked of strong man authoritarianism. The democrats were more open and tolerant and tried to appeal to more people, but they still seemed to largely ignore or snub Bernie supporters and went on doing what they wanted to do in the first place. Even when they tried to appeal to us it seemed fake because it was all words and no substance. Whoever wins, the next 4 years are going to suck.
Bonus: I might as well discuss the libertarians since they had their convention too
I covered the libertarians a while back. Their convention was largely a disaster if I recall. Their voting base seems to be made up of a lot of extremists and cranks who want to do away with driver licenses and sell heroin to 5 year olds, and let's not forget the naked guy dancing on stage. I know there are a lot of less extreme libertarians out there, but the libertarian base by and large scares me....
As for Johnson, he is a relatively solid candidate and all, and I'd recommend any right winger unsatisfied with Trump to give him a shot. He's not my cup of tea but he's fairly moderate by libertarian standards and is nevertheless a solid candidate.
Republicans
The RNC came off as strange to me. It almost had very much a creepy fascist type vibe to it. They pointed to a world in turmoil, with threats coming out of the woodwork everywhere, both at home and abroad, and Trump came off as the savior. The person who will bring order out of chaos and who will deal with all threats, foreign and domestic. At home, he's the "law and order" candidate, following in the footsteps of Nixon. Abroad, he was seen as the strong man who will keep us safe
Even worse, while it is expected that Trump and the Republicans would attack Hillary Clinton, the hate and vitriol was just too intense for my tastes. This isn't the same vibe I get from Bernie supporters by the way, who are just pissed off at a broken corrupt system that isn't listening to them. I felt like....a kind of mob mentality here. Especially with Christie's speech, which seemed to come only a step or two from burning an effigy of Clinton on stage.
The republicans seem totally out of touch with reality, out of touch with the world, and they seem angry and running to authoritarianism. I can see why people liken Trump to Hitler. While invoking Godwin's law might be a bit excessive, the whole thing really does give a creepy vibe similar to his rise to power in the 1930s.
The republicans had some good points at times though. They criticized the state of the economy, and while I don't think Trump has the slightest idea how to fix it, it seems like the republicans at least recognize something is wrong and that we need to fix it. I don't think they understand the actual problems and how to solve them though. Nor do the elites care, since their brand of trickle down economics got us into this mess in a lot of ways.
So, that's my opinion of the republicans. They seem to be driven by fear of enemies that may or may not exist, hate, and frustration with the economy. And Trump packages himself as their savior, saying things like "only I can fix it." As I said, it's actually quite creepy.
Democrats
The democrats seemed better than the republicans, but I still wasn't impressed. Clinton and the DNC acted like they wanted to win everyone over and unite the party, but all in all, it just seems so fake. Sanders supporters were largely ignored, outside of a few speeches, and even then calling Clinton a progressive who hears our concerns is a joke, considering how she's your run of the mill democratic centrist.
Sanders supporters were, for all intents and purposes, largely ignored. We were lectured and condescended to on the first night, and largely ignored for the rest of the convention. I've heard stories on the internet of subtle ways that Sanders supporters were largely silenced where they couldn't cause a fuss. And of course, the protests outside only got minor coverage at best (they were supposedly thousands strong).
The entire thing reminded me of the Hunger games. A choreographed spectacle intended to appeal to the masses, but which underplays and ignores a major undercurrent of general discontent. They tried to appear more united than they were.
Most groups that were appealed to were done so in a way to dig Trump and maybe win over republicans. There was way too much religion in it. Heck there was about as much talk of faith and God as you would expect from the republicans maybe. Don't quote me on that, I didn't measure or anything. There was a large focus on illegal immigrants and the disabled, which was a direct screw you to Trump in a way. And all in all, while there was some focus on substance, the entire thing felt like a huge emotional appeal. They spent more time trying to humanize Clinton and tell people how much she cares about children and families and women and blah blah blah.
As a childfree white male progressive left wing atheist, the entire thing just didn't appeal to me. Again, as I've said in other posts, it's not bad they tried to appeal to a lot of these different groups. I mean, the democratic party is diverse, diversity is good, and the whole world and its problems don't revolve around me. I understand that. But all in all, they did little to really push a progressive economic message, and when they tried, it just sounded so fake because Clinton's style of "progressivism" is quite moderate. I mean the more I process what was said, the more I recognize that they just gave us rhetoric with no real substance to back it up.
Generally speaking, they ran to the right, tried to win over disaffected republicans, tried to appeal to their base on issues other than economics, when they tried to discuss economics they watered it down to the center to appeal to the centrists and even the center right, and the left was largely snubbed and alienated. As I said, it was this Hunger Games-esque spectacle that keeps people distracted and passive while downplaying the undercurrents of division and discontent within the party. They went on with business as usual hoping that the Bernie people would just shut up or go away.
Conclusion
All in all, the democrats were way better than the republicans, but all in all, neither impressed me. The republicans came off as fundamentally out of touch with reality and their message even scared me because it reeked of strong man authoritarianism. The democrats were more open and tolerant and tried to appeal to more people, but they still seemed to largely ignore or snub Bernie supporters and went on doing what they wanted to do in the first place. Even when they tried to appeal to us it seemed fake because it was all words and no substance. Whoever wins, the next 4 years are going to suck.
Bonus: I might as well discuss the libertarians since they had their convention too
I covered the libertarians a while back. Their convention was largely a disaster if I recall. Their voting base seems to be made up of a lot of extremists and cranks who want to do away with driver licenses and sell heroin to 5 year olds, and let's not forget the naked guy dancing on stage. I know there are a lot of less extreme libertarians out there, but the libertarian base by and large scares me....
As for Johnson, he is a relatively solid candidate and all, and I'd recommend any right winger unsatisfied with Trump to give him a shot. He's not my cup of tea but he's fairly moderate by libertarian standards and is nevertheless a solid candidate.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
DNC Day 4 Part 2
Okay, so, as you know, I ranted earlier today about some of the earlier speeches. I'm going to cover the rest, including Clinton's speech now.
Many of the speeches were more of the same. I won't bother with those. Some of them were decent. Many of them were very high energy and some of the speakers tonight seemed very impassioned and fired up. I almost felt like I was in one of those Pentacostal church services with the pastor goes on about Jesus and his blood and the holy ghost, SAY HALLELUJAH! Seeing how some of them were literally preachers who invoked God all the time, doubly so.
As for Clinton. I think Clinton's speech wasn't bad. Unlike my rant earlier, the economy was front and center. Clinton acknowledged Bernie supporters, and talked about her plans for the economy. I'm not overly impressed with them, but then again, you know how much further left I am. She promoted the same old "job creation" stuff that we've heard under Obama and even the other Clinton if we want to come down to it (Bill talked about this stuff back in 1992 when he ran against Bush). I mean, it's good conventional politics, but conventional politics is wearing thin for me and we need new solutions. If you read this blog regularly, you'll understand why. If not, then get reading. Especially my argument on the labor market being rigged.
On other topics, she made a fairly strong case, on foreign policy, on social policy, etc. She's your standard democratic politician. She's fairly solid, and I would say she definitely knows more about public policy than the loud obnoxious oompa loompa in the other party.
As a matter of fact, despite the democratic party's shortcomings, I will say that overall, the democrats offer a much better vision and platform than the republicans hands down. But then again, that's kind of like saying water is wet and that 2+2=4 these days. I mean, I'd argue my problem with the democrats is that they're too much like the republicans whether they admit it or not, and I'd like them to double down on being liberal, especially on economics. But all in all, as far as the major two parties of our two party system go, the democrats are the only one with a decent idea of what they're doing hands down.
Despite this fact, the democrats still have a lot of work to do. They're still too moderate, and they're very untrustworthy coming off of the primary. As such, I still would suggest people looking for more to maybe consider a third party. One party having a monopoly on good ideas enables them to get away with a lot of crap they otherwise shouldn't be able to, and I think that it is important to hold them accountable, especially since they've been shamelessly flaunting the fact that they don't think we have other options but to vote for them.
So yeah, that's my thought on the democratic convention and Clinton. We're now going into the general election, and I don't know how I will be covering this from here on out. Most of my posts have been within the context of the primary, so this is a potential shift. I'll have to play it by ear. I'll likely post when I find something I talk about, like I always do. I'm guessing I'll be discussing electoral scenarios a lot. I will likely discuss major election events too, and whatever the heck I feel like talking about.
Many of the speeches were more of the same. I won't bother with those. Some of them were decent. Many of them were very high energy and some of the speakers tonight seemed very impassioned and fired up. I almost felt like I was in one of those Pentacostal church services with the pastor goes on about Jesus and his blood and the holy ghost, SAY HALLELUJAH! Seeing how some of them were literally preachers who invoked God all the time, doubly so.
As for Clinton. I think Clinton's speech wasn't bad. Unlike my rant earlier, the economy was front and center. Clinton acknowledged Bernie supporters, and talked about her plans for the economy. I'm not overly impressed with them, but then again, you know how much further left I am. She promoted the same old "job creation" stuff that we've heard under Obama and even the other Clinton if we want to come down to it (Bill talked about this stuff back in 1992 when he ran against Bush). I mean, it's good conventional politics, but conventional politics is wearing thin for me and we need new solutions. If you read this blog regularly, you'll understand why. If not, then get reading. Especially my argument on the labor market being rigged.
On other topics, she made a fairly strong case, on foreign policy, on social policy, etc. She's your standard democratic politician. She's fairly solid, and I would say she definitely knows more about public policy than the loud obnoxious oompa loompa in the other party.
As a matter of fact, despite the democratic party's shortcomings, I will say that overall, the democrats offer a much better vision and platform than the republicans hands down. But then again, that's kind of like saying water is wet and that 2+2=4 these days. I mean, I'd argue my problem with the democrats is that they're too much like the republicans whether they admit it or not, and I'd like them to double down on being liberal, especially on economics. But all in all, as far as the major two parties of our two party system go, the democrats are the only one with a decent idea of what they're doing hands down.
Despite this fact, the democrats still have a lot of work to do. They're still too moderate, and they're very untrustworthy coming off of the primary. As such, I still would suggest people looking for more to maybe consider a third party. One party having a monopoly on good ideas enables them to get away with a lot of crap they otherwise shouldn't be able to, and I think that it is important to hold them accountable, especially since they've been shamelessly flaunting the fact that they don't think we have other options but to vote for them.
So yeah, that's my thought on the democratic convention and Clinton. We're now going into the general election, and I don't know how I will be covering this from here on out. Most of my posts have been within the context of the primary, so this is a potential shift. I'll have to play it by ear. I'll likely post when I find something I talk about, like I always do. I'm guessing I'll be discussing electoral scenarios a lot. I will likely discuss major election events too, and whatever the heck I feel like talking about.
Day 4 of the DNC part 1
I'll admit, I'm starting this one fairly early, since I already have stuff to say, I'll post my complete thoughts after all the speeches tonight. I just feel like I have to rant.
You know, here's the thing that really steams me about this convention. The democrats are trying to be open, a big tent, open to ideas from everyone....except me and other Berners. We're told to fall in line. There are speeches pandering to illegal immigrants, telling them Clinton isn't going to deport them (I'm largely centrist on illegal immigration, I don't like Trump, but these guys are the other extreme). They're having feminists on stage screaming about how they won't sit down and shut up and how Clinton listens to them and listens to everyone. But at the end of the day, the democrats totally snubbed the Bernie people. Want universal healthcare? Fall in line. Want economic justice? Fall in line. Want to fix our problems? Shut up, put a fake smile on that face, and fall in line. What hypocrites. I'm just so beyond fed up with the democrats this election. I'm not even against most of which the democrats are for here. I mean, I'm not gung ho over amnesty to illegals, but I really see it as a necessary evil and don't care. I am for equal rights and support the causes of feminists and racial activists. We have problems there.
But at the end of the day, we have a bigger thing we need to focus on. Something that is impolite to talk about in this society of ours. We need to talk about class. Yes, CLASS. We need to talk about how, at the end of the day, the biggest, most overarching problems in our society, is not the division between black and white, male and female, it's the division between the haves and the have nots. It's the employers and the employees. Those who own the means of production and the wage slaves.
Honestly, all of this stuff the DNC is talking about is secondary to that. Not to mention, the Clinton variety of identity politics is actually harmful. It divides people. It's kinda like dog whistle politics and racism to begin with, but in reverse. Racism was arguably enforced in the US to keep the poor whites and blacks at each others' throats while the rich just held onto their position of power, screwing both groups. By focusing on these politically correct type feminism issues and all, it's the same kind of thing. It's focusing on minor issues, which are important to some degree, but a drop in the bucket from the major issues. But the Clinton democratic party doesn't want to talk about the major issues. They don't want to talk about class. They don't want to talk about the economy. They don't want to talk about real solutions. They want to talk about women and Latinos and their specific concerns, while alienating those who actually want to talk on the bigger issues. And you know what? I actually think the alt right that supports Donald Trump has arose in part due to these toxic politics.
And if you point this out, you're the bad guy. I've heard it all, I'm sexist. I'm privileged, blah blah blah. And I'M TECHNICALLY ON THEIR FREAKING SIDE!!! If I were in charge of the democratic party and its platform and its vision, these guys would still be a part of the party. Their concerns would be heard. We wouldn't talk nonstop for hours at conventions about them, but they will get theirs for the most part.
Again. I do want to emphasize this. I'm not against these concerns. I understand specific groups of people face specific problems. But at the end of the day, focusing on these issues while ignoring the big issues isn't going to fix much. It might make the world better in these minor incremental ways. But it doesn't fix the big picture. But then again, that's all the modern democrats are good for these days. Incrementalism. Minor changes/concessions that allow them to look like the good guys who care and are for progress. But at the end of the day, they don't care about you and me. They're giving the masses token, even symbolic concessions that keep them divided and distracted, while letting the big problems fester like they always do.
Now, I admit, I'm a white male. So maybe I am privileged. But considering how we've had 4 days of this stuff, and the only speeches I really think were on target were Warren's, Sanders', and maybe Obama's, it's a problem to discuss. The democrats, this election, have thrown Sanders supporters and their concerns overboard in favor of identity politics, and it's sickening. Have fun with your incremental change. Keep crawling back to a party every 4 years looking for them to fix your problems, only for them to not do so. Because that's all they're going to do.
Democrats, I'm going to put it in terms you need to understand. You need to be a better ally. You need to LISTEN to us. Not lecture us and condescend to us and ignore us. You need to sit down, shut up, and listen. You haven't done that all year. That's why you got booed Monday night and that's why there are apparently thousands of protesters outside that the media isn't covering (Wednesday's episode of the David Pakman Show estimated 5-6,000 protesters). Because you're not being a good ally. You listen to everyone but us. Maybe you don't want to listen to us... But that's how it is.
You know, here's the thing that really steams me about this convention. The democrats are trying to be open, a big tent, open to ideas from everyone....except me and other Berners. We're told to fall in line. There are speeches pandering to illegal immigrants, telling them Clinton isn't going to deport them (I'm largely centrist on illegal immigration, I don't like Trump, but these guys are the other extreme). They're having feminists on stage screaming about how they won't sit down and shut up and how Clinton listens to them and listens to everyone. But at the end of the day, the democrats totally snubbed the Bernie people. Want universal healthcare? Fall in line. Want economic justice? Fall in line. Want to fix our problems? Shut up, put a fake smile on that face, and fall in line. What hypocrites. I'm just so beyond fed up with the democrats this election. I'm not even against most of which the democrats are for here. I mean, I'm not gung ho over amnesty to illegals, but I really see it as a necessary evil and don't care. I am for equal rights and support the causes of feminists and racial activists. We have problems there.
But at the end of the day, we have a bigger thing we need to focus on. Something that is impolite to talk about in this society of ours. We need to talk about class. Yes, CLASS. We need to talk about how, at the end of the day, the biggest, most overarching problems in our society, is not the division between black and white, male and female, it's the division between the haves and the have nots. It's the employers and the employees. Those who own the means of production and the wage slaves.
Honestly, all of this stuff the DNC is talking about is secondary to that. Not to mention, the Clinton variety of identity politics is actually harmful. It divides people. It's kinda like dog whistle politics and racism to begin with, but in reverse. Racism was arguably enforced in the US to keep the poor whites and blacks at each others' throats while the rich just held onto their position of power, screwing both groups. By focusing on these politically correct type feminism issues and all, it's the same kind of thing. It's focusing on minor issues, which are important to some degree, but a drop in the bucket from the major issues. But the Clinton democratic party doesn't want to talk about the major issues. They don't want to talk about class. They don't want to talk about the economy. They don't want to talk about real solutions. They want to talk about women and Latinos and their specific concerns, while alienating those who actually want to talk on the bigger issues. And you know what? I actually think the alt right that supports Donald Trump has arose in part due to these toxic politics.
And if you point this out, you're the bad guy. I've heard it all, I'm sexist. I'm privileged, blah blah blah. And I'M TECHNICALLY ON THEIR FREAKING SIDE!!! If I were in charge of the democratic party and its platform and its vision, these guys would still be a part of the party. Their concerns would be heard. We wouldn't talk nonstop for hours at conventions about them, but they will get theirs for the most part.
Again. I do want to emphasize this. I'm not against these concerns. I understand specific groups of people face specific problems. But at the end of the day, focusing on these issues while ignoring the big issues isn't going to fix much. It might make the world better in these minor incremental ways. But it doesn't fix the big picture. But then again, that's all the modern democrats are good for these days. Incrementalism. Minor changes/concessions that allow them to look like the good guys who care and are for progress. But at the end of the day, they don't care about you and me. They're giving the masses token, even symbolic concessions that keep them divided and distracted, while letting the big problems fester like they always do.
Now, I admit, I'm a white male. So maybe I am privileged. But considering how we've had 4 days of this stuff, and the only speeches I really think were on target were Warren's, Sanders', and maybe Obama's, it's a problem to discuss. The democrats, this election, have thrown Sanders supporters and their concerns overboard in favor of identity politics, and it's sickening. Have fun with your incremental change. Keep crawling back to a party every 4 years looking for them to fix your problems, only for them to not do so. Because that's all they're going to do.
Democrats, I'm going to put it in terms you need to understand. You need to be a better ally. You need to LISTEN to us. Not lecture us and condescend to us and ignore us. You need to sit down, shut up, and listen. You haven't done that all year. That's why you got booed Monday night and that's why there are apparently thousands of protesters outside that the media isn't covering (Wednesday's episode of the David Pakman Show estimated 5-6,000 protesters). Because you're not being a good ally. You listen to everyone but us. Maybe you don't want to listen to us... But that's how it is.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
DNC Day 3
Okay, I'm kind of bored with this convention. It's the same old stuff I covered on days 1 and 2. I mean, I don't have much to say. Clinton cares, Trump bad, blah blah blah. The only things I haven't said before that have come to mind in my last day are:
1) Religion. I'm tired of the religious overtones of the convention. I mean, I expect this of the republican party, but between the constant convocations at the beginning of the sessions, the religious choirs, and the constant talk about faith, it's a bit much. I believe in separation of church and state, and while religion and public life will intersect, it's just excessive and annoying.
2) Too many "martyrdom" stories. I plan on eventually covering this as a topic in itself, but I might as well discuss a little here. We live in a country that glorifies struggle against adversity, always. I am someone who wants to eliminate adversity. I want to make life easier, and I want to improve peoples' lives. I hate how existence can be such a struggle for some. To me, in the richest nation on earth, with the most resources available to solve our problems, it is unacceptable that these problems exist. The democrats, half their speakers talk a lot about adversity. About life challenges they needed to overcome. The working mom with 3 jobs who is trying to put their kids through college. The disabled person who had to overcome all odds. The mom who had to come to terms with her son dying in the war on terror. We, and democrats do this too, highlight these stories so we can...celebrate this stuff. We value strength and ability to deal with adversity. I believe in eliminating adversity. It's like, people allow our system to be broken just so we have good stories to tell each other about how unfair life is and how we overcame obstacles. It's like a cult of martyrdom. It's not something that touches me. I don't celebrate overcoming adversity. I'd rather adversity doesn't exist. So Clinton gives a hand up to working moms. Why not make a system in which we don't have these problems to begin with, insofar that we can realistically do so? Instead of talking about moms who lost kids in war, why not talk about not getting involved in wars we should've never fought? (like Iraq). Look, we will likely never make things PERFECT. But we should, realistically, try to make life much better. And not in small ways, in big ways. We need to stop dealing with these small targeted reforms, and start dealing with the big issues, and try to solve our problems systemically. Again, I just don't get people. Do people really have such stockholm syndrome that they see our problems as inevitable and don't try to fix them in big ways?
So, that's just two things I noticed and my reactions.
I won't go too much into the speeches. Most were boring and repetitive. I'll just touch on the big three. Biden's speech was decent and it was a good screw you to Trump. Trump, last week, laid out this huge image of America being under constant siege from terrorists and stuff, and how we need to make America great again economically. Biden mentioned how we are just about the best nation on earth with the biggest military and economy bar none. I don't think things are rosy, but Trump does paint a distorted picture of America and I think Biden did a good job refuting him.
Kaine's speech didn't go over well with me. Too much religion, too much talk about overcoming adversity and being tough. Again, machismo or whatever you want to call it doesn't sway me. See my above rant about eliminating adversity altogether.
Obama's speech was more dead on. You know, while I would've liked to have seen more progressivism out of Obama's presidency, he gets it. After all, he presided over the recession. He understands the economy isn't perfect. He understands there is progress to be made. He even gave Bernie supporters advice and encouragement and told us not to give up. I respect him a lot. I disagree with him on some things, but all in all, given the choices come November, I'm going to miss him. Obama is the guy who got me in the democratic party all things considered.
All things considered, it was another boring and annoying night out of the DNC, with the exception of Obama's speech, and maybe Biden's. I really wish more of the democratic party could at least be as far left as Obama and understand how to connect to people. I mean, so much of the party just doesn't get it. I mean, liberalism, sold properly, pushed with the right measure of solutions, can be a very unifying force. It gives a positive message of a hope of a better tomorrow and focuses on identifying and fixing problems. But so many democrats just don't get it. They're too moderate and don't understand how to connect to the younger generation of democrats, particularly those who support Sanders. Obama seems to be just about the only one in the party who gets it other than Warren and Sanders. That's part of the reason they're so disappointing this election. Not to mention the whole rigging the primary for Hillary thing.
1) Religion. I'm tired of the religious overtones of the convention. I mean, I expect this of the republican party, but between the constant convocations at the beginning of the sessions, the religious choirs, and the constant talk about faith, it's a bit much. I believe in separation of church and state, and while religion and public life will intersect, it's just excessive and annoying.
2) Too many "martyrdom" stories. I plan on eventually covering this as a topic in itself, but I might as well discuss a little here. We live in a country that glorifies struggle against adversity, always. I am someone who wants to eliminate adversity. I want to make life easier, and I want to improve peoples' lives. I hate how existence can be such a struggle for some. To me, in the richest nation on earth, with the most resources available to solve our problems, it is unacceptable that these problems exist. The democrats, half their speakers talk a lot about adversity. About life challenges they needed to overcome. The working mom with 3 jobs who is trying to put their kids through college. The disabled person who had to overcome all odds. The mom who had to come to terms with her son dying in the war on terror. We, and democrats do this too, highlight these stories so we can...celebrate this stuff. We value strength and ability to deal with adversity. I believe in eliminating adversity. It's like, people allow our system to be broken just so we have good stories to tell each other about how unfair life is and how we overcame obstacles. It's like a cult of martyrdom. It's not something that touches me. I don't celebrate overcoming adversity. I'd rather adversity doesn't exist. So Clinton gives a hand up to working moms. Why not make a system in which we don't have these problems to begin with, insofar that we can realistically do so? Instead of talking about moms who lost kids in war, why not talk about not getting involved in wars we should've never fought? (like Iraq). Look, we will likely never make things PERFECT. But we should, realistically, try to make life much better. And not in small ways, in big ways. We need to stop dealing with these small targeted reforms, and start dealing with the big issues, and try to solve our problems systemically. Again, I just don't get people. Do people really have such stockholm syndrome that they see our problems as inevitable and don't try to fix them in big ways?
So, that's just two things I noticed and my reactions.
I won't go too much into the speeches. Most were boring and repetitive. I'll just touch on the big three. Biden's speech was decent and it was a good screw you to Trump. Trump, last week, laid out this huge image of America being under constant siege from terrorists and stuff, and how we need to make America great again economically. Biden mentioned how we are just about the best nation on earth with the biggest military and economy bar none. I don't think things are rosy, but Trump does paint a distorted picture of America and I think Biden did a good job refuting him.
Kaine's speech didn't go over well with me. Too much religion, too much talk about overcoming adversity and being tough. Again, machismo or whatever you want to call it doesn't sway me. See my above rant about eliminating adversity altogether.
Obama's speech was more dead on. You know, while I would've liked to have seen more progressivism out of Obama's presidency, he gets it. After all, he presided over the recession. He understands the economy isn't perfect. He understands there is progress to be made. He even gave Bernie supporters advice and encouragement and told us not to give up. I respect him a lot. I disagree with him on some things, but all in all, given the choices come November, I'm going to miss him. Obama is the guy who got me in the democratic party all things considered.
All things considered, it was another boring and annoying night out of the DNC, with the exception of Obama's speech, and maybe Biden's. I really wish more of the democratic party could at least be as far left as Obama and understand how to connect to people. I mean, so much of the party just doesn't get it. I mean, liberalism, sold properly, pushed with the right measure of solutions, can be a very unifying force. It gives a positive message of a hope of a better tomorrow and focuses on identifying and fixing problems. But so many democrats just don't get it. They're too moderate and don't understand how to connect to the younger generation of democrats, particularly those who support Sanders. Obama seems to be just about the only one in the party who gets it other than Warren and Sanders. That's part of the reason they're so disappointing this election. Not to mention the whole rigging the primary for Hillary thing.
My attempt to make a positive case for Hillary Clinton
So, I'm tired of watching all the feels at the Democratic convention, and how so many arguments for Clinton have to do with how much she cares and blah blah blah. I'm also tired of hearing lesser of two evils arguments. People, it's not that hard to make a positive case for your candidate, even when that candidate is Hillary Clinton. Heck, I want to prove it. Now, this will not paint Clinton as perfect. I'm working with someone who is flawed and who I don't agree with. But despite my dislike of her, I still nevertheless see her as a fairly solid option, especially for those center of the road or center left. Without further ado, let's get to it.
Experience
Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified candidate running for president of the United States. For better or for worse, she has been preparing for this position since at least 2001, possibly since 1992. She has a very long resume, being a very active first lady in Bill's administration, being a senator, and then Secretary of State. She's helped develop and pass many programs that help children, she helped people harmed cleaning up 9/11 get adequate medical compensation, and she also was part of the administration that got Osama Bin Laden. She doesn't have a perfect record, I mean, someone this experienced in politics is going to make mistakes here and there, but she's far more qualified than anyone else running. Trump clearly has no idea what he's doing. Stein isn't much better. Johnson has at least held public office before but isn't as qualified as Clinton by a long shot.
Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is the kind of policy that the president has the most control over, being the commander in chief of the military, and Clinton is uniquely qualified for the job. She has a lot of experience from her previous roles in government, and probably has a better understanding of the way the world works than anyone else running. She knows how to deal with Russia, with ISIS, with China, etc. She knows how to shrewdly negotiate and make a deal with foreign powers that work in our favor. You can rest safe at night knowing that Clinton has the safety of the nation firmly in her hands, and she will keep you as safe as any politician reasonably can.
Social Policy
Clinton is a candidate whose views are based on freedom, and on science. Unlike the republicans, who can't figure out the world is over 6000 years old, that access to abortion and birth control are good things, and that gay people aren't causing category 5 hurricanes to hit New Orleans by simply by existing and incurring the wrath of homophobic deities, Clinton believes that access to abortion is necessary, that women who have autonomy over their own bodies, and that people should have reproductive freedom. Clinton believe that your business in the bedroom is yours, and as long as it's between two consenting adults, that's okay. Clinton recognizes the realities of illegal immigration and that deporting 11 million people will cause way more harm than good, and that most of these people being here are not harming the US much at all. She also recognizes that perhaps the biggest threat to our national security isn't necessarily ISIS or Muslims, but maybe it's the fact that it's too easy for people who shouldn't have guns, to get guns. All in all, Clinton will focus on the real issues that actually impact Americans in tangible ways, leaving people to be able to live as they want without harming others. Amazing. I know.
Economic Policy
Clinton may not be as progressive as Sanders, but she understands that you at least need some safety nets for the economy to function. She isn't going to give you universal healthcare, or free education, or basic income, but she does recognize that republican laissez faire is harmful. She understands that gee, maybe unions are a good thing for the economy (I hope). She recognizes we may need an increased minimum wage. She understands people, even those who try their best and play by the rules, are going to ultimately need help. So she wants programs that help people like unemployment, social security and Obamacare. You can argue her ways are not the best, but they at least work. And yes, she at least says she wants to implement SOME of Sanders' ideas. I mean, she actually is for free...ish education now assuming you have a reasonably low income level and aren't loaded.
Summing up the argument
All in all, Clinton is not the progressive champion we need, but she is nevertheless a solid candidate. She has the experience and know how to get things done. She has the foreign policy experience necessarily to run our nation and keep us safe. She has a solid social policy that focuses on the real issues and allows people to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others. And while her economic policy isn't perfect, it's at least workable. She isn't going to fix every problem, but she will act as a competent executive that will keep you safe and give you a leg up when you really really need it.
Conclusion
I'm going to start being the more cynical me now. I really don't know why this is so freaking hard for the democrats to figure out. Hillary's opponent is DONALD TRUMP. The guy is an idiot. I'm surprised he can run his financial empire all things considered and even then he went bankrupt a few times. But really, there are better arguments for Clinton than how much she cares and how bad Trump is. She has a whole lifetime of experience to run on. Use it. She doesn't need to rig primaries and scare us into falling in line or else. She does, on the other hand, make a positive case for herself, and make up for a ton of alienation done over the course of the past year.
Considering the problems we face, I've never been excited about Clinton. She's not what we need. She won't fix the economy in meaningful ways. She won't bring economic justice or make things better. But at least before this primary season, I respected her. I lost that respect, with her inability to make a case for herself that connects, and the DNC's general negative disposition toward Bernie, his ideas, and his supporters and their flagrant bias toward Clinton.
I really believe things didn't have to be this way. Even if Sanders lost fair and square, Clinton could still be a good runner up. She's basically a third term of Obama. And if she ran a clean campaign, if she made a positive case for herself, I could've easily fallen in line and supported her. I was totally on board with the democratic party agenda before this election.
But when you decide to alienate your opponent's supporters in every way possible and then rub salt in the wounds by telling us we HAVE to support you or else bad things will happen? It makes me wonder if you're TRYING to lose. Again, I really do want to point out it doesn't have to be this way. Objectively, Clinton IS a stronger candidate than Stein in many many ways. The only reason I'm supporting Stein is to push back against the democrats being so awful this time around. Again, it's like they're trying to alienate their own base and lose. What the actual fudge.
Anyway, I just felt it was necessary to argue a case for Clinton better than the DNC can. If anyone reads this, feel free to comment to me on whether this case would have influenced you if not for all the crap going on this year. I mean, I really could've gone for Clinton this year if she were a bit more accommodating for Sanders, or at least wasn't so hostile.
Experience
Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified candidate running for president of the United States. For better or for worse, she has been preparing for this position since at least 2001, possibly since 1992. She has a very long resume, being a very active first lady in Bill's administration, being a senator, and then Secretary of State. She's helped develop and pass many programs that help children, she helped people harmed cleaning up 9/11 get adequate medical compensation, and she also was part of the administration that got Osama Bin Laden. She doesn't have a perfect record, I mean, someone this experienced in politics is going to make mistakes here and there, but she's far more qualified than anyone else running. Trump clearly has no idea what he's doing. Stein isn't much better. Johnson has at least held public office before but isn't as qualified as Clinton by a long shot.
Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is the kind of policy that the president has the most control over, being the commander in chief of the military, and Clinton is uniquely qualified for the job. She has a lot of experience from her previous roles in government, and probably has a better understanding of the way the world works than anyone else running. She knows how to deal with Russia, with ISIS, with China, etc. She knows how to shrewdly negotiate and make a deal with foreign powers that work in our favor. You can rest safe at night knowing that Clinton has the safety of the nation firmly in her hands, and she will keep you as safe as any politician reasonably can.
Social Policy
Clinton is a candidate whose views are based on freedom, and on science. Unlike the republicans, who can't figure out the world is over 6000 years old, that access to abortion and birth control are good things, and that gay people aren't causing category 5 hurricanes to hit New Orleans by simply by existing and incurring the wrath of homophobic deities, Clinton believes that access to abortion is necessary, that women who have autonomy over their own bodies, and that people should have reproductive freedom. Clinton believe that your business in the bedroom is yours, and as long as it's between two consenting adults, that's okay. Clinton recognizes the realities of illegal immigration and that deporting 11 million people will cause way more harm than good, and that most of these people being here are not harming the US much at all. She also recognizes that perhaps the biggest threat to our national security isn't necessarily ISIS or Muslims, but maybe it's the fact that it's too easy for people who shouldn't have guns, to get guns. All in all, Clinton will focus on the real issues that actually impact Americans in tangible ways, leaving people to be able to live as they want without harming others. Amazing. I know.
Economic Policy
Clinton may not be as progressive as Sanders, but she understands that you at least need some safety nets for the economy to function. She isn't going to give you universal healthcare, or free education, or basic income, but she does recognize that republican laissez faire is harmful. She understands that gee, maybe unions are a good thing for the economy (I hope). She recognizes we may need an increased minimum wage. She understands people, even those who try their best and play by the rules, are going to ultimately need help. So she wants programs that help people like unemployment, social security and Obamacare. You can argue her ways are not the best, but they at least work. And yes, she at least says she wants to implement SOME of Sanders' ideas. I mean, she actually is for free...ish education now assuming you have a reasonably low income level and aren't loaded.
Summing up the argument
All in all, Clinton is not the progressive champion we need, but she is nevertheless a solid candidate. She has the experience and know how to get things done. She has the foreign policy experience necessarily to run our nation and keep us safe. She has a solid social policy that focuses on the real issues and allows people to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others. And while her economic policy isn't perfect, it's at least workable. She isn't going to fix every problem, but she will act as a competent executive that will keep you safe and give you a leg up when you really really need it.
Conclusion
I'm going to start being the more cynical me now. I really don't know why this is so freaking hard for the democrats to figure out. Hillary's opponent is DONALD TRUMP. The guy is an idiot. I'm surprised he can run his financial empire all things considered and even then he went bankrupt a few times. But really, there are better arguments for Clinton than how much she cares and how bad Trump is. She has a whole lifetime of experience to run on. Use it. She doesn't need to rig primaries and scare us into falling in line or else. She does, on the other hand, make a positive case for herself, and make up for a ton of alienation done over the course of the past year.
Considering the problems we face, I've never been excited about Clinton. She's not what we need. She won't fix the economy in meaningful ways. She won't bring economic justice or make things better. But at least before this primary season, I respected her. I lost that respect, with her inability to make a case for herself that connects, and the DNC's general negative disposition toward Bernie, his ideas, and his supporters and their flagrant bias toward Clinton.
I really believe things didn't have to be this way. Even if Sanders lost fair and square, Clinton could still be a good runner up. She's basically a third term of Obama. And if she ran a clean campaign, if she made a positive case for herself, I could've easily fallen in line and supported her. I was totally on board with the democratic party agenda before this election.
But when you decide to alienate your opponent's supporters in every way possible and then rub salt in the wounds by telling us we HAVE to support you or else bad things will happen? It makes me wonder if you're TRYING to lose. Again, I really do want to point out it doesn't have to be this way. Objectively, Clinton IS a stronger candidate than Stein in many many ways. The only reason I'm supporting Stein is to push back against the democrats being so awful this time around. Again, it's like they're trying to alienate their own base and lose. What the actual fudge.
Anyway, I just felt it was necessary to argue a case for Clinton better than the DNC can. If anyone reads this, feel free to comment to me on whether this case would have influenced you if not for all the crap going on this year. I mean, I really could've gone for Clinton this year if she were a bit more accommodating for Sanders, or at least wasn't so hostile.
Yes, I know Jill Stein is a crackpot, but what choice do I have at this point?
So, a mere day after Stein spoke to Bernie supporters in Philadelphia, news articles are trying to expose all these crazy ideas Jill Stein holds. I've discussed some of these. She's anti GMO, anti nuclear energy, she's dodged questions on vaccinations, she wants to dismantle half our military, and her student debt idea is to use QE to erase it. I don't deny most of these are bad ideas. GMOs don't need to be labeled, and this is anti science woo woo crap. Same with nuclear, anti vaccines, etc. We can't cut the military she wants without threatening our own national security. And yes, while student debt should be forgiven, doing so via QE would likely cause inflation.
Here's the thing though. What choice do I have? Trump is even worse and is a total idiot. Pence is gonna have to do a lot of damage control for this guy. Johnson is competent, but his ideology is so counter to mine, especially on economic issues. Clinton is highly competent, but she's not going to fix the problems, she offers watered down centrism, I think she's shady as heck, and I really have reservations about rewarding her vote given the shady stuff that happened in the primary. I mean, the argument for Clinton is an argument that we don't have other options, and that we BETTER fall in line or else. She may be competent, but I really feel uncomfortable voting for her.
I still feel uncomfortable with Stein, all things considered too. But Stein is never going to win. She won't get a single electoral vote. The point of voting for Stein is more about protesting and pressuring the democrats, and hoping that they take progressives more seriously in the future. The republican and democratic parties are not going to go away. However, they have, through many times in history, been forced to change to meet their voters and their problems. I mean, before people say third parties don't matter, look at 1968. A refusal to support the democrats by the south brought down an entire democratic coalition and led to the rise of Reagan. people like to go on and on and on about 2000, but I'll counter your 2000 with 1968 every time. Or, as Stein herself brings up, what about 1860? Before then, the Republican party WAS a third party. So, while in many elections, particularly mid alignment, like 2000 was, voting for a third party isn't going to do much, if we're seeing the parties start to dealign and realign like we arguably are now, it CAN change things.
So, that's my argument for Jill Stein. It's not about her. It's not about her incompetence. It's about the bigger picture, and understanding our place within it. A vote for the democrats is a vote for the status quo. A vote for Stein is a vote for change. Stein and the greens will never ever win. But if the greens get a significant portion of the vote, especially by Bernie or busters this election who are pissed off and alienated, maybe it will cause the democrats to clean up their act and take a serious look at progressive ideas. The democrats are scared of moving left because they think that there's no demand for it. But if we start rocking the boat where they feel threatened in terms of losing elections, they will HAVE TO to win. And then, when they put forth more competent progressive candidates like Sanders, or Warren, or, say, Berniecrats making it into congress, THEN we can vote for them and get our way. We will never get our way submitting to the democratic party. It takes rocking the boat to do so. As long as the democrats have power over you, they will ignore you because you have no leverage. You need to use your leverage to support third parties to make them change.
The way I see it, Sanders' political movement has no future in the democratic party as it exists. They'll take our ideas "under advisement" and just do whatever they want anyway. We need the party to adopt the ideas in a full throated, unapologetic way.
Here's the thing though. What choice do I have? Trump is even worse and is a total idiot. Pence is gonna have to do a lot of damage control for this guy. Johnson is competent, but his ideology is so counter to mine, especially on economic issues. Clinton is highly competent, but she's not going to fix the problems, she offers watered down centrism, I think she's shady as heck, and I really have reservations about rewarding her vote given the shady stuff that happened in the primary. I mean, the argument for Clinton is an argument that we don't have other options, and that we BETTER fall in line or else. She may be competent, but I really feel uncomfortable voting for her.
I still feel uncomfortable with Stein, all things considered too. But Stein is never going to win. She won't get a single electoral vote. The point of voting for Stein is more about protesting and pressuring the democrats, and hoping that they take progressives more seriously in the future. The republican and democratic parties are not going to go away. However, they have, through many times in history, been forced to change to meet their voters and their problems. I mean, before people say third parties don't matter, look at 1968. A refusal to support the democrats by the south brought down an entire democratic coalition and led to the rise of Reagan. people like to go on and on and on about 2000, but I'll counter your 2000 with 1968 every time. Or, as Stein herself brings up, what about 1860? Before then, the Republican party WAS a third party. So, while in many elections, particularly mid alignment, like 2000 was, voting for a third party isn't going to do much, if we're seeing the parties start to dealign and realign like we arguably are now, it CAN change things.
So, that's my argument for Jill Stein. It's not about her. It's not about her incompetence. It's about the bigger picture, and understanding our place within it. A vote for the democrats is a vote for the status quo. A vote for Stein is a vote for change. Stein and the greens will never ever win. But if the greens get a significant portion of the vote, especially by Bernie or busters this election who are pissed off and alienated, maybe it will cause the democrats to clean up their act and take a serious look at progressive ideas. The democrats are scared of moving left because they think that there's no demand for it. But if we start rocking the boat where they feel threatened in terms of losing elections, they will HAVE TO to win. And then, when they put forth more competent progressive candidates like Sanders, or Warren, or, say, Berniecrats making it into congress, THEN we can vote for them and get our way. We will never get our way submitting to the democratic party. It takes rocking the boat to do so. As long as the democrats have power over you, they will ignore you because you have no leverage. You need to use your leverage to support third parties to make them change.
The way I see it, Sanders' political movement has no future in the democratic party as it exists. They'll take our ideas "under advisement" and just do whatever they want anyway. We need the party to adopt the ideas in a full throated, unapologetic way.
Was the democratic party primary rigged?
This is not just sour grapes the day after Clinton was coronated (although yes, I am bitter, thank you very much for asking). I came across a very strong case that suggests that the democratic primary was rigged for Clinton. It's very long, almost 100 pages, so just a TLDR warning there, but strong cases require laying out evidence, and require a lot of time to make one's case. So, I suggest reading it if you care for the details.
Anyway, the analysis is done by Election Justice USA, and argues that the the Democratic party may have been rigged via various methods like "targetted voter suppression", "registration tampering", "illegal voter purges", "exit polling discrepancies", "voting machine tampering", and weak security among voting machines (p. 95). It suggests that this could have cost Sanders up to around 184 delegates, which, having gone to Sanders, would have closed the lead by 368 delegates. Considering how Clinton won the popular delegate count by 359 delegates, this is enough to suggest that Sanders could have theoretically won the primary. It also mentions how the rigging could have affected media narratives, possibly costing even more delegates.
Now, all of this does not suggest that this effect was enough to solidify a Sanders lead. It's really only the most pronounced scenarios where it actually would have made enough difference to have an effect. If Sanders only lost 100 delegates, for example, he would have only shrunk Clinton's lead to 159. So it's really only the worst case scenario that Sanders actually lost the primary.
Still, this is very problematic for our democracy. Even minor/isolated voter suppression and the like is nothing to sneeze at. Every little bit helps, as anyone who lived through the 2000 election will tell you. This really puts the whole legitimacy of the democratic party and Hillary's candidacy into question, especially given the recent leaks. The democrats are looking as shady as heck right now. I can't say I'll be inclined to support them this election given all this. At least on the presidential level.
Anyway, the analysis is done by Election Justice USA, and argues that the the Democratic party may have been rigged via various methods like "targetted voter suppression", "registration tampering", "illegal voter purges", "exit polling discrepancies", "voting machine tampering", and weak security among voting machines (p. 95). It suggests that this could have cost Sanders up to around 184 delegates, which, having gone to Sanders, would have closed the lead by 368 delegates. Considering how Clinton won the popular delegate count by 359 delegates, this is enough to suggest that Sanders could have theoretically won the primary. It also mentions how the rigging could have affected media narratives, possibly costing even more delegates.
Now, all of this does not suggest that this effect was enough to solidify a Sanders lead. It's really only the most pronounced scenarios where it actually would have made enough difference to have an effect. If Sanders only lost 100 delegates, for example, he would have only shrunk Clinton's lead to 159. So it's really only the worst case scenario that Sanders actually lost the primary.
Still, this is very problematic for our democracy. Even minor/isolated voter suppression and the like is nothing to sneeze at. Every little bit helps, as anyone who lived through the 2000 election will tell you. This really puts the whole legitimacy of the democratic party and Hillary's candidacy into question, especially given the recent leaks. The democrats are looking as shady as heck right now. I can't say I'll be inclined to support them this election given all this. At least on the presidential level.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Day 2 of the DNC: The coronation
So today was day 2 of the Democratic convention. It was noticably calmer than the first day, but not necessarily because Sanders supporters calmed down. There were still protests outside, some of them attended a Jill Stein rally, many people wore tape on their mouths to indicate the DNC trying to silence them, and apparently, most of them stormed out after Bernie conceded the nomination to her. So if you're wondering if the party is more united, it appears that way on the surface, the way the mainstream media is covering it, but in reality, the people pissed off just weren't covered and went home.
As for Bernie conceding, I felt disappointed. He essentially moved to nominate Clinton as the nominee when they got to Vermont's votes, surrendering the nomination to himself. I understand what Sanders is doing. He's trying to bow out gracefully and unite the party, but honestly, I feel like he just surrendered to an inferior candidate. He's too soft, he's too gracious, especially after they screwed him. I'm sorry Bernie, but I can't follow suit here. I won't support Clinton. I'm supporting Jill Stein, someone who I feel actually shares my values and wants similar solutions to problems that I want.
As for the convention itself, it wasn't really much different than day 1 substance wise. Most speeches were boring. They focused on Hillary being the first nominee for president who is a woman. They focused on Hillary's caring about women and children. They tried to focus on this whole emotional connection Hillary has that makes some people tear up, but really does nothing to move me. Strangely, there was a lot of talk about 9/11 and how much Hillary did after it as senator of New York. There was a lot of bashing of Trump, most of which was legitimate (keep in mind, no matter how much I dislike Clinton, I dislike Trump much much more). They focused on reproductive rights, which was the one argument that did move me, since I'm very liberal on social issues. On economics, it was a mixed bag. One guy talked about the American dream and needing to keep it alive and I'm just thinking "ugh, not this crap again"...it's really reminding me how much further left I am of the democrats these days. Others were a little more on point rhetorically, but it just doesn't click with me because I know they're full of crap. It's basically the same as the republican convention. They talk about the problems, sometimes they even hit a nerve and are dead on...but at the end of the day, are they going to fix them? The answer is a resounding no. Clinton is just the third term of her husband, or of Obama. They have little in real solutions to fix the country, and let's be honest, just like we have problems after 8 years of Obama, we will have the same problems in 2020 and 2024 even if she gets elected. The dems are just too far right to fix our problems. So all this excitement and energy for Hillary just seems so fake to me.
As for Bill Clinton's speech, it was largely more of the same. He literally gave us his life story of falling in love with her and how much she cares about people. He discussed her experiences throughout her life, which was good, but ultimately, no disrespect to Clinton, I just don't believe she's the right person for the job, maybe better than Trump, but not as good as Sanders would be. She may have done great things, but our problems are larger than she is willing to take on and I don't believe Clinton is willing to do so. Yes, she pushed for healthcare in the 90s, but she's the obstacle to universal healthcare today. And yes, change is hard as Bill said, but I really don't believe Clinton is willing to try, full heartedly, like Sanders is.
Maybe I'm biased, or maybe I'm cold. I'm just not really touched here. I think the democrats bet on the wrong horse, and while Clinton wouldn't be an awful president, she wouldn't be great. I don't expect any changes here. I am glad they pushed for more positive reasons to support Clinton that ultimately don't fall into lesser of two evils thinking, but ultimately, it's ineffective. It's too emotional. Too based on feels. I do care about some of the ideals Clinton was for, but her approach is too incremental for my tastes. You can't run a country on feels or picking up these pet causes here and there. We need a strong leader who looks at the problems systematically and proposes big solutions to them. I doubt Clinton's ability to do that. As such, you'll find me with the Bernie or busters joining Jill Stein.
As for Bernie conceding, I felt disappointed. He essentially moved to nominate Clinton as the nominee when they got to Vermont's votes, surrendering the nomination to himself. I understand what Sanders is doing. He's trying to bow out gracefully and unite the party, but honestly, I feel like he just surrendered to an inferior candidate. He's too soft, he's too gracious, especially after they screwed him. I'm sorry Bernie, but I can't follow suit here. I won't support Clinton. I'm supporting Jill Stein, someone who I feel actually shares my values and wants similar solutions to problems that I want.
As for the convention itself, it wasn't really much different than day 1 substance wise. Most speeches were boring. They focused on Hillary being the first nominee for president who is a woman. They focused on Hillary's caring about women and children. They tried to focus on this whole emotional connection Hillary has that makes some people tear up, but really does nothing to move me. Strangely, there was a lot of talk about 9/11 and how much Hillary did after it as senator of New York. There was a lot of bashing of Trump, most of which was legitimate (keep in mind, no matter how much I dislike Clinton, I dislike Trump much much more). They focused on reproductive rights, which was the one argument that did move me, since I'm very liberal on social issues. On economics, it was a mixed bag. One guy talked about the American dream and needing to keep it alive and I'm just thinking "ugh, not this crap again"...it's really reminding me how much further left I am of the democrats these days. Others were a little more on point rhetorically, but it just doesn't click with me because I know they're full of crap. It's basically the same as the republican convention. They talk about the problems, sometimes they even hit a nerve and are dead on...but at the end of the day, are they going to fix them? The answer is a resounding no. Clinton is just the third term of her husband, or of Obama. They have little in real solutions to fix the country, and let's be honest, just like we have problems after 8 years of Obama, we will have the same problems in 2020 and 2024 even if she gets elected. The dems are just too far right to fix our problems. So all this excitement and energy for Hillary just seems so fake to me.
As for Bill Clinton's speech, it was largely more of the same. He literally gave us his life story of falling in love with her and how much she cares about people. He discussed her experiences throughout her life, which was good, but ultimately, no disrespect to Clinton, I just don't believe she's the right person for the job, maybe better than Trump, but not as good as Sanders would be. She may have done great things, but our problems are larger than she is willing to take on and I don't believe Clinton is willing to do so. Yes, she pushed for healthcare in the 90s, but she's the obstacle to universal healthcare today. And yes, change is hard as Bill said, but I really don't believe Clinton is willing to try, full heartedly, like Sanders is.
Maybe I'm biased, or maybe I'm cold. I'm just not really touched here. I think the democrats bet on the wrong horse, and while Clinton wouldn't be an awful president, she wouldn't be great. I don't expect any changes here. I am glad they pushed for more positive reasons to support Clinton that ultimately don't fall into lesser of two evils thinking, but ultimately, it's ineffective. It's too emotional. Too based on feels. I do care about some of the ideals Clinton was for, but her approach is too incremental for my tastes. You can't run a country on feels or picking up these pet causes here and there. We need a strong leader who looks at the problems systematically and proposes big solutions to them. I doubt Clinton's ability to do that. As such, you'll find me with the Bernie or busters joining Jill Stein.
Let's debunk this whole "a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump" BS
I'm tired of hearing it. A lot of Clinton supporters think if you're not with them, you're against them, and that if you don't support Clinton, you're supporting Trump. I disagree. This is based on faulty logic that reeks of the whole sentiment of "if you're not with me, you're against me", an argument made by the likes of the Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader) and George W. Bush.
The thing is, people who make this argument assume that the "side" you align more closely with is entitled (ugh) to your vote. That they deserve it by default, and that by not casting it, you're denying them something they're owed. But at the end of the day, every candidate starts with 0 votes. Every vote for them is a vote for them. A vote not for them may be against them in a two party system, but doesn't have to be.
Yes, third parties can "split" electorates, and take votes away from other candidates who would otherwise get them. But my perspective is if those third party candidates get votes, they are doing something right and the major parties are doing something wrong. I don't think it's fair to blame the voters if someone loses. Much like the age old philosophy in the private sector, "the customer is always right", then perhaps the voter should always be right too.
Moreover, a lot of the argument that third parties split the vote is based on opportunity costs. That if a person did not vote for a third party, they would support a major candidate. This is not necessarily true. Some might hold their nose and support a candidate, but that's not a healthy attitude toward democracy. Others might stay home and not vote at all, losing an investment in the outcome.
At worst, I would argue that voting third party is far less damaging than voting for the opposing candidate. Say you have candidates A and B with 50 votes each. If you vote for candidate A, he now has 51 votes. If you vote for candidate B, he now has 51 votes. Voting for those candidates has an impact on their voting counts relative of one another, and causes them to win or lose. if I vote for candidate C, who has no votes, what happens? Both A and B are still at 50 votes, and C now has 1. Nothing changes. It's the same as if I declined to vote at all. Yes, candidate A could argue I would otherwise support him, but couldn't B argue the same thing? And ultimately, isn't it my choice to support any of these candidates in the first place?
Again, I feel like these arguments take a very unhealthy attitude toward democracy. That candidates are owed votes and that the voters' choice isn't really theirs to make. It discourages voting with one's conscience and encourages being a team player to teams that they might not even like. It's a totally backwards and toxic approach to take of democracy, and one that robs the voter of their agency and conscience. It works out well for the party trying to impose this logic on people...they get votes after all, but it's bad for the voter and encourages lesser of two evil thinking. Honestly, I see third party voting as an important safety valve in our democracy, and it's why I'm doing it. If I support Clinton, I am supporting a candidate I don't agree with, and a party that screwed me and my candidate. They don't deserve my vote. I need to vote third party because I refuse to support them, and I refuse to support Trump. It's my way of voting without staying home.
A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for a third party is a vote for them. We need to stop seeing a refusal to vote FOR someone as automatically voting AGAINST them. Yes, a vote for Trump can be seen as a vote against Clinton. And a vote for Clinton can be seen as against Trump. But a vote for a third party is a way of saying screw both of those guys. It's a vote for one's values, and is completely independent of supporting either candidate.
The thing is, people who make this argument assume that the "side" you align more closely with is entitled (ugh) to your vote. That they deserve it by default, and that by not casting it, you're denying them something they're owed. But at the end of the day, every candidate starts with 0 votes. Every vote for them is a vote for them. A vote not for them may be against them in a two party system, but doesn't have to be.
Yes, third parties can "split" electorates, and take votes away from other candidates who would otherwise get them. But my perspective is if those third party candidates get votes, they are doing something right and the major parties are doing something wrong. I don't think it's fair to blame the voters if someone loses. Much like the age old philosophy in the private sector, "the customer is always right", then perhaps the voter should always be right too.
Moreover, a lot of the argument that third parties split the vote is based on opportunity costs. That if a person did not vote for a third party, they would support a major candidate. This is not necessarily true. Some might hold their nose and support a candidate, but that's not a healthy attitude toward democracy. Others might stay home and not vote at all, losing an investment in the outcome.
At worst, I would argue that voting third party is far less damaging than voting for the opposing candidate. Say you have candidates A and B with 50 votes each. If you vote for candidate A, he now has 51 votes. If you vote for candidate B, he now has 51 votes. Voting for those candidates has an impact on their voting counts relative of one another, and causes them to win or lose. if I vote for candidate C, who has no votes, what happens? Both A and B are still at 50 votes, and C now has 1. Nothing changes. It's the same as if I declined to vote at all. Yes, candidate A could argue I would otherwise support him, but couldn't B argue the same thing? And ultimately, isn't it my choice to support any of these candidates in the first place?
Again, I feel like these arguments take a very unhealthy attitude toward democracy. That candidates are owed votes and that the voters' choice isn't really theirs to make. It discourages voting with one's conscience and encourages being a team player to teams that they might not even like. It's a totally backwards and toxic approach to take of democracy, and one that robs the voter of their agency and conscience. It works out well for the party trying to impose this logic on people...they get votes after all, but it's bad for the voter and encourages lesser of two evil thinking. Honestly, I see third party voting as an important safety valve in our democracy, and it's why I'm doing it. If I support Clinton, I am supporting a candidate I don't agree with, and a party that screwed me and my candidate. They don't deserve my vote. I need to vote third party because I refuse to support them, and I refuse to support Trump. It's my way of voting without staying home.
A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for a third party is a vote for them. We need to stop seeing a refusal to vote FOR someone as automatically voting AGAINST them. Yes, a vote for Trump can be seen as a vote against Clinton. And a vote for Clinton can be seen as against Trump. But a vote for a third party is a way of saying screw both of those guys. It's a vote for one's values, and is completely independent of supporting either candidate.
Did Russia hack the DNC and does it matter?
So I noticed after the DNC hacks, CNN and MSNBC and others have been pushing the story that the DNC email hacks were caused by Russian spies who want to influence elections and destabilize our country. I originally wrote a post with the attempt to debunk it, but after looking more closely at evidence, there is a stronger case to be made.
Cybersecurity experts are claiming Russian hackers infiltrated the system and left their fingerprints all over the place. While the official story seems to indicate that the hacker is a Romanian, there are doubts to his true identity. I'm really not sure. I looked at the evidence via google and I can't really come to a conclusion either way.
On the one hand, the Russians have a good reason to favor Trump over Clinton. Clinton is hawkish on foreign policy, while Trump is softer, less competent, and some of the things he wants to do would likely favor Russia immensely if he gets his way.
On the other hand, the Russia argument plays too well into the DNC and their media arms' hands. If I were the DNC or their media, I would want to downplay or distract people from paying attention to the leaks. And by blaming the big bad Russians, they have the perfect scapegoat to take the heat off of themselves and spin it around the other way. So an argument can be made from both sides.
Does it matter? Probably not. Quite frankly, I've been suspecting the DNC playing dirty for months before the leaks, and I acted under the assumption that they were. So the emails changed nothing for me. The fact is, in college, as a political science grad, I learned how to spot signs of authoritarianism in regimes. You can have a system that sounds fair on the surface, but when you start digging and looking at how things work and who the power players are, these systems often clearly become rigged in favor of a certain party or dictator. Did you know communist Cuba has elections? There's only one party, the communist party, and they win all the elections with nearly 100% of the vote. But yeah. They have elections. And if we want to talk about Russia, what about Putin and his cronies stuffing ballot boxes? Didn't he win that one election with 140% of the vote or something?
In authoritarian regimes, elections are political theater intended to distract the populace and give them the impression they have a choice when it's really an illusion. All their choices are carefully picked out for them, they're pushed, and dissidents are marginalized or even jailed/killed (Russia is, once again, a good example of this, just look at how many people who criticize Putin end up dead).
We're not a full on authoritarian regime in America, but I think that this election has exposed the oligarchical underbelly on American democracy in ways that are deeply disturbing for a country that so highly values freedom and democracy. The candidacy of Bernie Sanders has essentially shown to me that the system is rigged, that the elites choose the candidates, that the people don't have a real choice, and that anyone serious about changing the system gets eaten alive by that very same system when they try. I didn't need leaked emails to figure this out. Although the emails tend to make the case stronger.
That being said, to me, it doesn't matter who leaked it. I do NOT like the idea of Russia trying to influence our elections. Don't get me wrong. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the facts that we have a serious problem in our electoral system that needs fixing. And the DNC is quite clearly a problem as it exists. They should have been impartial, and they shouldn't be trying to push a single narrative or browbeat us into supporting candidates that we don't want. We are free to vote for whomever we want in this country, and as Ted Cruz would say, "vote your conscience." That's all I can say. Screw Russia, screw the DNC, screw anyone else who wants to manipulate you. My advice to everyone is that they look at the evidence themselves and make their own informed decisions. The truth will set you free. Don't be anyone's puppet. Be a free thinker who does what you want because you believe strongly in it after a careful look at the evidence.
Cybersecurity experts are claiming Russian hackers infiltrated the system and left their fingerprints all over the place. While the official story seems to indicate that the hacker is a Romanian, there are doubts to his true identity. I'm really not sure. I looked at the evidence via google and I can't really come to a conclusion either way.
On the one hand, the Russians have a good reason to favor Trump over Clinton. Clinton is hawkish on foreign policy, while Trump is softer, less competent, and some of the things he wants to do would likely favor Russia immensely if he gets his way.
On the other hand, the Russia argument plays too well into the DNC and their media arms' hands. If I were the DNC or their media, I would want to downplay or distract people from paying attention to the leaks. And by blaming the big bad Russians, they have the perfect scapegoat to take the heat off of themselves and spin it around the other way. So an argument can be made from both sides.
Does it matter? Probably not. Quite frankly, I've been suspecting the DNC playing dirty for months before the leaks, and I acted under the assumption that they were. So the emails changed nothing for me. The fact is, in college, as a political science grad, I learned how to spot signs of authoritarianism in regimes. You can have a system that sounds fair on the surface, but when you start digging and looking at how things work and who the power players are, these systems often clearly become rigged in favor of a certain party or dictator. Did you know communist Cuba has elections? There's only one party, the communist party, and they win all the elections with nearly 100% of the vote. But yeah. They have elections. And if we want to talk about Russia, what about Putin and his cronies stuffing ballot boxes? Didn't he win that one election with 140% of the vote or something?
In authoritarian regimes, elections are political theater intended to distract the populace and give them the impression they have a choice when it's really an illusion. All their choices are carefully picked out for them, they're pushed, and dissidents are marginalized or even jailed/killed (Russia is, once again, a good example of this, just look at how many people who criticize Putin end up dead).
We're not a full on authoritarian regime in America, but I think that this election has exposed the oligarchical underbelly on American democracy in ways that are deeply disturbing for a country that so highly values freedom and democracy. The candidacy of Bernie Sanders has essentially shown to me that the system is rigged, that the elites choose the candidates, that the people don't have a real choice, and that anyone serious about changing the system gets eaten alive by that very same system when they try. I didn't need leaked emails to figure this out. Although the emails tend to make the case stronger.
That being said, to me, it doesn't matter who leaked it. I do NOT like the idea of Russia trying to influence our elections. Don't get me wrong. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the facts that we have a serious problem in our electoral system that needs fixing. And the DNC is quite clearly a problem as it exists. They should have been impartial, and they shouldn't be trying to push a single narrative or browbeat us into supporting candidates that we don't want. We are free to vote for whomever we want in this country, and as Ted Cruz would say, "vote your conscience." That's all I can say. Screw Russia, screw the DNC, screw anyone else who wants to manipulate you. My advice to everyone is that they look at the evidence themselves and make their own informed decisions. The truth will set you free. Don't be anyone's puppet. Be a free thinker who does what you want because you believe strongly in it after a careful look at the evidence.
Why Sanders' speech was the most persuasive argument I've heard for Hillary Clinton (and why I still don't buy it)
I've been saying it for months. The Clinton camp has nothing. They have a lesser of two evils campaign going in which they screw the masses and then use all kinds of arguments to browbeat them into supporting a candidate they otherwise hate. I've said before that it would be nice to have a positive message, a positive defense of Clinton for once. Sanders' speech is the best attempt to defend Clinton I've heard.
It's no wonder. Bernie is Bernie. He gets it. He knows how to argue in our terms and discuss things in ways we can understand and relate to. As I said in another article, he and Warren are the only two that did not come off as tone deaf tonight in my opinion.
It's really a matter of making a positive argument people can relate to, and considering the circumstances, no one can make that better than Bernie. Bernie negotiated with the DNC and the Clinton campaign on our behalf to push the party to the left. He is therefore able to say that by supporting Clinton, we are supporting him, in effect, because we are supporting his ideas that made it into the platform. This is a strong and compelling argument.
It does not, however, sell me. As I've said, I see most concessions as surface concessions that change little substance but are made to sound good to placate us. We also need to keep in mind the democrats refused to support universal healthcare, indexation of the minimum wage, and let's not forget, they don't oppose the TPP. That being said Clinton is only really selling a cheap, watered down knock off of Bernie's ideas, not his ideas themselves.
It's also not really out of the question that after the convention, if Sanders supporters are placated and vote for Hillary, that she will turn around and do what she wants anyway. The fact is, many Bernie supporters, including myself, don't trust Clinton and the DNC. Why should we? Clinton changes her views with the political winds and the democrats screwed Sanders and stabbed him in the back. Why should we trust them? Honestly, I think Sanders is taking the whole email thing too graciously, and he's just being too nice and accommodating in working with the democrats here. They screw him and then he gives them a full endorsement?! He is still technically in the running, but still. He's acting as if he has already lost.
Honestly, I think what it comes down to is that Clinton is not salvageable. She is just is too untrustworthy and too tone deaf to get Sanders supporters. And in my case, I just don't believe Clinton shares my values and ideology. The democrats almost look like conservative lites these days. They might talk tough, Obama talked tough in 2012. Warren and Sanders talk tough. But I see a party that is unwilling to solve the problems that exist in this country in a serious way. Sanders at least wants to try. But that's one of the reasons the democrats have it out for him and don't consider him one of them. The democrats would rather flock to tone deaf clueless centrism and attack anyone who tries to actually put forward workable solutions. In the best case scenario they might give a concession or two just to shut people up and make them settle down, but at the end of the day, the problems remain and the DNC goes on with business as usual. They're too invested in their little status quo and their little "political realities" to actually care about fixing the problems the little people face in a tangible way.
So sorry, Bernie. You made a good speech, and I have to give you credit where credit is due, but as those protesters yelled this morning, only you. I trust you to try to solve our problems. I don't trust Clinton and the DNC. They're not salvageable to me this election. There are too many trust issues there. I trust you, but I don't trust them. By asking us to support Clinton you are asking us to do something morally distasteful, and we just don't feel comfortable doing it. You may think your revolution lives on if we support Clinton, but I see it as dying and being absorbed into the corrupt entity that is the current DNC. It will be coopted for the sake of winning votes, but nothing will actually change on the macro scale.
Monday, July 25, 2016
DNC Day 1: So much for unity...
Today was the first day of the Democratic convention, and the theme of the convention was unity. It didn't happen for the most part. I have to wonder how tone deaf the democrats are, because they don't understand Sanders supporters at all. They pushed the same old out of touch focus group crap that they've been pushing, and it went over like a lead balloon.
The day started off with Debbie Wasserman Schultz being booed by her own state's delegation. She ended up turning down her opening of the convention role, and gave it to another tone deaf woman who was flagrantly anti Sanders much like Debbie. This lasted about a half hour, before they chose a third person, who also said negative things about Sanders. They just kept replacing anti Sanders people with more anti Sanders people. There was significant protesting outside, and even Sanders himself got booed to heck when he encouraged people to support Clinton.
The fact is, the democratic party is tone deaf. They don't really want unity. They want submission. And most of their "concessions" to us are surface concessions. Much like DWS getting replaced by other anti Sanders people. Speaking of DWS, you realize she got hired by Clinton not long after being let go by the DNC? Yeah that happened. Also, a lot of people in the convention had their Bernie signs taken away from them under the threat that if they didn't agree they would be stripped of their credentials tomorrow. So yeah, the democratic convention is, expectedly, a Clinton coronation, and while Sanders supporters are trying to make their opinions heard, they are largely getting looked down upon for not falling in line. Despite the discussion being on unity, I haven't seen much unity. Most speeches are about Trump being a meanie and Clinton caring about people Trump hates. The closest I've seen to getting to a discussion on unity was Franken and Silverman's comedy act, and while the tone started off good, Silverman ultimately ended up stirring up the hornet's nest by telling Bernie or Bust people they're 'ridiculous." Way to almost attempt to bridge the gap and then end up pissing us off. Seriously.
Beyond that, outside of a few good speeches my opinion of the night was fairly blase. There were tons of speeches from people of Hispanic origin pandering to the Latino vote, including one of a little girl on stage being worried of her parents being deported. There was a speech by a disabled woman. There are a lot of anti-Trump hate, and a lot of the speakers above were often used to bash Trump. There was a lot of focus on Clinton's human element, and the big focus was on families. Clinton cares, Clinton wants families to succeed, blah blah blah. Again, very boring and uninspiring. On economics, there was likely a good speech or two here and there, but ultimately, it just came off as boring and uninspiring, because most were by centrists who just have a more left wing version of trickle down economics. Michelle Obama's platitudes didn't really connect with me, even though the crowd loved it.
The only really good speeches were Warren and Sanders. Warren really channeled what I'm about, like unrigging the system, and pushing progressive ideas. She was a heavy hitter who did a good job in arguing for Hillary. The only problem with her speech is...she was arguing for Hillary. Considering the backdrop of the emails scandal, the otherwise "fall in line" mentality of the democrats, her words rang hollow. Warren reminded me of what the democratic party is SUPPOSED to be about, and what attracted me to them to begin with, but honestly, what Warren doesn't understand is Clinton is part of the rigged system she railed against. I love Warren. I hope to see her run for president in a future election. She's probably my second favorite politician besides Bernie. I would easily vote for either one of these guys. But the democratic party made a horrible mistake with the choices they made this election. They backed the wrong horse, and that horse is not a representative of progressive values, no matter how you try to dress her up.
Bernie was on fire tonight. He was at the top of his game. He thanked his supporters, thanked his delegates, and said he was looking forward to tomorrow roll call. He really did have a unifying message, and focused on the issues. He talked about the political revolution and the fact that we need to fix the problems with America such as poverty and a rigged economy. He talked about what he and the democratic party stand for in the best possible light. This is what the democratic party needs to be about moving forward. Quite frankly, the only problem with his speech, much like Warren, is that he was ultimately selling Clinton, not himself. And I simply don't believe Clinton represents the same values. He makes it tempting though, I admit that. He's made the strongest case for Clinton I've ever heard and put it in terms I can understand and empathize with. This is the positive case for Hillary I've been looking for all election. If I didn't know anything about her, I would be sold. But considering everything that's happened. Considering the email hacks, considering her moderation, considering her relations with the 1%, I can't do it. It's gonna take a lot more than simply Warren and Sanders making her case for her. She has to make it herself, which she has utterly failed to do. And even then, she has a serious sincerity problem as well. To an extent the problem is Clinton is just too tarnished for the job.
Honestly, I hope the democrats learned something today. You can't screw with Sanders supporters. You can't tell us to fall in line. You can't push sterilized focus group inspired speeches on us. You can't bully us. You need to offer a positive vision like Warren and Sanders did. They were the only two in the convention who "got it." The other guys were largely boring, and the convention tonight was largely a joke. But those two really channel the best the party has to offer. One of them is still running for president. I hope the DNC superdelegates reconsider what horse they want to bet on. One path leads to a positive vision for the party and unity. The other path leads to a negative vision based on fear and division. Sanders will bring the democratic party to victory. Clinton may not.
The day started off with Debbie Wasserman Schultz being booed by her own state's delegation. She ended up turning down her opening of the convention role, and gave it to another tone deaf woman who was flagrantly anti Sanders much like Debbie. This lasted about a half hour, before they chose a third person, who also said negative things about Sanders. They just kept replacing anti Sanders people with more anti Sanders people. There was significant protesting outside, and even Sanders himself got booed to heck when he encouraged people to support Clinton.
The fact is, the democratic party is tone deaf. They don't really want unity. They want submission. And most of their "concessions" to us are surface concessions. Much like DWS getting replaced by other anti Sanders people. Speaking of DWS, you realize she got hired by Clinton not long after being let go by the DNC? Yeah that happened. Also, a lot of people in the convention had their Bernie signs taken away from them under the threat that if they didn't agree they would be stripped of their credentials tomorrow. So yeah, the democratic convention is, expectedly, a Clinton coronation, and while Sanders supporters are trying to make their opinions heard, they are largely getting looked down upon for not falling in line. Despite the discussion being on unity, I haven't seen much unity. Most speeches are about Trump being a meanie and Clinton caring about people Trump hates. The closest I've seen to getting to a discussion on unity was Franken and Silverman's comedy act, and while the tone started off good, Silverman ultimately ended up stirring up the hornet's nest by telling Bernie or Bust people they're 'ridiculous." Way to almost attempt to bridge the gap and then end up pissing us off. Seriously.
Beyond that, outside of a few good speeches my opinion of the night was fairly blase. There were tons of speeches from people of Hispanic origin pandering to the Latino vote, including one of a little girl on stage being worried of her parents being deported. There was a speech by a disabled woman. There are a lot of anti-Trump hate, and a lot of the speakers above were often used to bash Trump. There was a lot of focus on Clinton's human element, and the big focus was on families. Clinton cares, Clinton wants families to succeed, blah blah blah. Again, very boring and uninspiring. On economics, there was likely a good speech or two here and there, but ultimately, it just came off as boring and uninspiring, because most were by centrists who just have a more left wing version of trickle down economics. Michelle Obama's platitudes didn't really connect with me, even though the crowd loved it.
The only really good speeches were Warren and Sanders. Warren really channeled what I'm about, like unrigging the system, and pushing progressive ideas. She was a heavy hitter who did a good job in arguing for Hillary. The only problem with her speech is...she was arguing for Hillary. Considering the backdrop of the emails scandal, the otherwise "fall in line" mentality of the democrats, her words rang hollow. Warren reminded me of what the democratic party is SUPPOSED to be about, and what attracted me to them to begin with, but honestly, what Warren doesn't understand is Clinton is part of the rigged system she railed against. I love Warren. I hope to see her run for president in a future election. She's probably my second favorite politician besides Bernie. I would easily vote for either one of these guys. But the democratic party made a horrible mistake with the choices they made this election. They backed the wrong horse, and that horse is not a representative of progressive values, no matter how you try to dress her up.
Bernie was on fire tonight. He was at the top of his game. He thanked his supporters, thanked his delegates, and said he was looking forward to tomorrow roll call. He really did have a unifying message, and focused on the issues. He talked about the political revolution and the fact that we need to fix the problems with America such as poverty and a rigged economy. He talked about what he and the democratic party stand for in the best possible light. This is what the democratic party needs to be about moving forward. Quite frankly, the only problem with his speech, much like Warren, is that he was ultimately selling Clinton, not himself. And I simply don't believe Clinton represents the same values. He makes it tempting though, I admit that. He's made the strongest case for Clinton I've ever heard and put it in terms I can understand and empathize with. This is the positive case for Hillary I've been looking for all election. If I didn't know anything about her, I would be sold. But considering everything that's happened. Considering the email hacks, considering her moderation, considering her relations with the 1%, I can't do it. It's gonna take a lot more than simply Warren and Sanders making her case for her. She has to make it herself, which she has utterly failed to do. And even then, she has a serious sincerity problem as well. To an extent the problem is Clinton is just too tarnished for the job.
Honestly, I hope the democrats learned something today. You can't screw with Sanders supporters. You can't tell us to fall in line. You can't push sterilized focus group inspired speeches on us. You can't bully us. You need to offer a positive vision like Warren and Sanders did. They were the only two in the convention who "got it." The other guys were largely boring, and the convention tonight was largely a joke. But those two really channel the best the party has to offer. One of them is still running for president. I hope the DNC superdelegates reconsider what horse they want to bet on. One path leads to a positive vision for the party and unity. The other path leads to a negative vision based on fear and division. Sanders will bring the democratic party to victory. Clinton may not.
Election update: 7/25/16
So, as you can see, I'm following the same template as I did last time, for efficiency's sake. I kind of wondered if it was worth pushing a new update on the election so soon because not much had changed, but then a bunch of polls came out in the last day or so that are NOT good news for Clinton, and things are looking more positive for Trump. A lot has happened in the last week. We've seen the DNC email leak, and a fairly strong performance by Trump last week at the Republican Convention, so Trump appears to be gaining a lot on Hillary. Without further ado, let's get to it and see the damage first hand.
Aggregate polling
Trump- 44.3%, Clinton, 44.1% (Trump 0.2%)
Ouch. Trump just decimated Clinton's lead and they are now tied for all intents and purposes in the popular vote. If you recall, last time I suggested Trump gaining 3 points could give him the election. We'll have to see how the electoral college turns out, but this is not looking good for Clinton. She is getting destroyed this week.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates
Clinton- 40.4%, Trump- 40%, Johnson- 7.2%, Stein- 3.0% (Clinton +0.4%)
Clinton is also more or less tied with Trump when third party candidates are counted. Not surprising. Her leads stay the same or are slightly better when third party candidates are counted.
Electoral College
Changes: I'm dropping Colorado from this last for now since Real Clear Politics did so and the margin is 8 points. Oregon is now considered in play, but still leans Clinton, and I would expect it to stay that way. The way things stand, Clinton is starting out with 202 electoral votes, with Trump starting out with 156. So she still has an institutional starting advantage regardless.
Arizona - 0.5% Clinton (no change)
Florida - 0.3% Trump (swung back to Trump, but still a de facto tie)
Georgia - 4.5% Trump (up from 4.2%)
Iowa - 0.5% Clinton (down from 3%)
Kentucky - 3.0% Clinton (no change, I still don't trust it)
Michigan - 5.2% Clinton (up from 5%)
Nevada - 2.0% Trump (up from 0.5%)
New Hampshire - 3.7% Clinton (up from 2.7%)
North Carolina - 2.0% Clinton (no change)
Ohio - 0.8% Clinton (down from 1.8%)
Oregon - 4.5% Clinton
Pennsylvania - 3.2% Clinton (no change)
Virginia - 5.3% Clinton (up from 4.8%, may be attributable to Tim Kaine as vice president)
Wisconsin - 5.6% Clinton (no change)
Maine CD2 - 1% Trump (no change)
Election Scenarios
Most likely scenario with toss ups - 295-178 Clinton
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 330-208 Clinton
All toss ups Clinton (Clinton + 1) - 360-178 Clinton
Clinton + 2 - 366-172 Clinton
All toss ups Trump (Trump + 1) - 295-243 Clinton
Trump + 2 - 280-258 Clinton
Trump + 3 - 272-266 Clinton
Trump + 4 - 248-290 Trump
All in all, while Trump made some significant gains, he really only shifted the race significantly in the really close match ups, and while the most accurate electoral counts are much more competitive compared to last time, as the race has pivoted toward Trump, it really is a drop in the bucket compared to what he needs. He won over a few more states and is more competitive, but the most positive REALISTIC scenario has him at 295-243, still in favor of Clinton. As a matter of fact, losing New Hampshire on the Trump + 3 model cost him the race there. To be fair, we don't have updated polls in Pennsylvania, and that could really make the difference in the +3 model. If new polls dropped the average below 3 points, then Clinton is done in that scenario. Even in the +2 model, if Trump can hit hard in PA, he can still win the election there.
So, we need to keep an eye on things. But despite many of the gains made by the Trump campaign in aggregate polling averages, the electoral college data does not pan out THAT much more favorably toward Trump, and he's still likely going to lose. He needs to make a concerted effort in a few target states and solidify leads in the states he's currently competitive in to stand a chance.
Aggregate polling
Trump- 44.3%, Clinton, 44.1% (Trump 0.2%)
Ouch. Trump just decimated Clinton's lead and they are now tied for all intents and purposes in the popular vote. If you recall, last time I suggested Trump gaining 3 points could give him the election. We'll have to see how the electoral college turns out, but this is not looking good for Clinton. She is getting destroyed this week.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates
Clinton- 40.4%, Trump- 40%, Johnson- 7.2%, Stein- 3.0% (Clinton +0.4%)
Clinton is also more or less tied with Trump when third party candidates are counted. Not surprising. Her leads stay the same or are slightly better when third party candidates are counted.
Electoral College
Changes: I'm dropping Colorado from this last for now since Real Clear Politics did so and the margin is 8 points. Oregon is now considered in play, but still leans Clinton, and I would expect it to stay that way. The way things stand, Clinton is starting out with 202 electoral votes, with Trump starting out with 156. So she still has an institutional starting advantage regardless.
Arizona - 0.5% Clinton (no change)
Florida - 0.3% Trump (swung back to Trump, but still a de facto tie)
Georgia - 4.5% Trump (up from 4.2%)
Iowa - 0.5% Clinton (down from 3%)
Kentucky - 3.0% Clinton (no change, I still don't trust it)
Michigan - 5.2% Clinton (up from 5%)
Nevada - 2.0% Trump (up from 0.5%)
New Hampshire - 3.7% Clinton (up from 2.7%)
North Carolina - 2.0% Clinton (no change)
Ohio - 0.8% Clinton (down from 1.8%)
Oregon - 4.5% Clinton
Pennsylvania - 3.2% Clinton (no change)
Virginia - 5.3% Clinton (up from 4.8%, may be attributable to Tim Kaine as vice president)
Wisconsin - 5.6% Clinton (no change)
Maine CD2 - 1% Trump (no change)
Election Scenarios
Most likely scenario with toss ups - 295-178 Clinton
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 330-208 Clinton
All toss ups Clinton (Clinton + 1) - 360-178 Clinton
Clinton + 2 - 366-172 Clinton
All toss ups Trump (Trump + 1) - 295-243 Clinton
Trump + 2 - 280-258 Clinton
Trump + 3 - 272-266 Clinton
Trump + 4 - 248-290 Trump
All in all, while Trump made some significant gains, he really only shifted the race significantly in the really close match ups, and while the most accurate electoral counts are much more competitive compared to last time, as the race has pivoted toward Trump, it really is a drop in the bucket compared to what he needs. He won over a few more states and is more competitive, but the most positive REALISTIC scenario has him at 295-243, still in favor of Clinton. As a matter of fact, losing New Hampshire on the Trump + 3 model cost him the race there. To be fair, we don't have updated polls in Pennsylvania, and that could really make the difference in the +3 model. If new polls dropped the average below 3 points, then Clinton is done in that scenario. Even in the +2 model, if Trump can hit hard in PA, he can still win the election there.
So, we need to keep an eye on things. But despite many of the gains made by the Trump campaign in aggregate polling averages, the electoral college data does not pan out THAT much more favorably toward Trump, and he's still likely going to lose. He needs to make a concerted effort in a few target states and solidify leads in the states he's currently competitive in to stand a chance.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Trump opposition in 2016 vs Obama opposition in 2008
I may still only be in my 20s, but I've been around the block a bit. I've witnessed many presidential elections so far, and have a pretty decent memory of 2004 on (when I started paying attention to politics). Even then, I have a decent memory of 2000 too (especially the whole controversy), and vague memories of 1996 and 1992. Today, I want to focus on the whole Trump thing.
The democrats are trying to portray a Trump election in apocalyptic terms. The sky will fall, he will start world war 3, destroy our country, cause millions to die, blah blah blah. The supreme court will forever lean conservative, he will destroy this country's foreign policy, he will implode our economy, blah blah blah.
I have no doubt Trump would be a bad president. Then again, I can't think of a single republican who would be a good president. The whole party jumped off a cliff. But let's not act like Trump is uniquely bad, and that he needs to be stopped.
It's true, he doesn't know what he's doing. He has no experience, he's extremely ignorant on the issues. However, after watching the republican convention, I have a suspicion that if he gets elected he's not going to be the one running the country. Between rumors of his delegating his responsibilities out to Mike Pence, allowing the Heritage foundation to pick court justices for him etc., I suspect he will allow the RNC to make important decisions, while he just oversees the process and makes nice speeches. And while any GOP president is bad, I don't see Trump as UNIQUELY bad. Heck, in the primary, I saw him as less dangerous than Ted Cruz, because Cruz is much more of an ideological hardliner who also knows how to get things done. I actually see Trump's ignorance and naivete as working in his favor because it tells me he won't be as extreme as other candidates. I think he will work with whomever he has to work with, be they republican or democrat. I see him as mostly being a puppet of the RNC, although he may also work with the democrats if they retake congress (see: Clinton, Obama).
I also want to remind people that I was a republican in 2008. And I fell for a lot of propaganda for Obama. I believed he was a socialist, that he wanted to redistribute the wealth, that he had strange anti capitalistic ideas. And don't forget his lack of experience. The guy didn't even finish out one term in the senate and was already running for president. He was portrayed as naive and green and a disaster for this country, between his inexperience and "extreme" ideology. I was smart enough not to fall for birtherism, but other than that I bought into a lot of the republican propaganda. After the 2010 mid terms, I recognized he wasn't anywhere as bad as I thought and was actually quite moderate and competent. And then I became a democrat in 2012 or so and moved left since then.
Trump is, admittedly, objectively worse than Obama. He has NO political experience, no grasp of any policies (Obama at least had some and was very educated on the issues). And he says a lot of dangerous and crazy things. However, the democrats act like he would be the apocalypse. They're more or less trying to turn him into the new Barry Goldwater, and even ripped off old Goldwater ads. And let's not forget the similarities between all the talk about nuclear codes and the Daisy ad.
All in all, I have no doubts a Trump presidency would be awful. However, I don't think it will be AS bad as the democrats act like (they would portray any republican at this point as just as bad if they were the nominee), and let's not forget Clinton wouldn't be great. She would be better, but not great. And honestly, I think giving a vote to Clinton out of fear just validates the DNC's mistreatment of Sanders and progressives and their persistent dissing of the left, so all a vote for Clinton would do is just extend the crappy status quo. Things aren't going to change until we push the system electorally, and until we are willing to pressure the parties to change things. They'll keep treating us like schmucks as long as we continue acting like them.
That being said, when you hear all of this shrill screaming about how "there's so much at stake" and that you have to "vote blue no matter who" and that you have a civic duty to support Clinton even if you don't like her, don't buy it. This is just DNC propaganda that's trying to intimidate and scare you into voting for them because they have nothing else to run on.
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. Vote your conscience, as Cruz would say. If you think that Trump would be good, then support him. If you think Clinton would be good, or are so scared of Trump you have to support her, do so. But don't diss people for voting third party and tell us we're wasting our vote or that there's so much at stake and we can't afford to mess around. The way I see it, we need to mess around. We need to stand up to the establishment, and nothing will ever change. So if your conscience is like mine and tells you to vote third party, Johnson, Stein, whomever, do so. It's the only way things will change. Don't be scared or intimidated. Just vote for whom you want.
The democrats are trying to portray a Trump election in apocalyptic terms. The sky will fall, he will start world war 3, destroy our country, cause millions to die, blah blah blah. The supreme court will forever lean conservative, he will destroy this country's foreign policy, he will implode our economy, blah blah blah.
I have no doubt Trump would be a bad president. Then again, I can't think of a single republican who would be a good president. The whole party jumped off a cliff. But let's not act like Trump is uniquely bad, and that he needs to be stopped.
It's true, he doesn't know what he's doing. He has no experience, he's extremely ignorant on the issues. However, after watching the republican convention, I have a suspicion that if he gets elected he's not going to be the one running the country. Between rumors of his delegating his responsibilities out to Mike Pence, allowing the Heritage foundation to pick court justices for him etc., I suspect he will allow the RNC to make important decisions, while he just oversees the process and makes nice speeches. And while any GOP president is bad, I don't see Trump as UNIQUELY bad. Heck, in the primary, I saw him as less dangerous than Ted Cruz, because Cruz is much more of an ideological hardliner who also knows how to get things done. I actually see Trump's ignorance and naivete as working in his favor because it tells me he won't be as extreme as other candidates. I think he will work with whomever he has to work with, be they republican or democrat. I see him as mostly being a puppet of the RNC, although he may also work with the democrats if they retake congress (see: Clinton, Obama).
I also want to remind people that I was a republican in 2008. And I fell for a lot of propaganda for Obama. I believed he was a socialist, that he wanted to redistribute the wealth, that he had strange anti capitalistic ideas. And don't forget his lack of experience. The guy didn't even finish out one term in the senate and was already running for president. He was portrayed as naive and green and a disaster for this country, between his inexperience and "extreme" ideology. I was smart enough not to fall for birtherism, but other than that I bought into a lot of the republican propaganda. After the 2010 mid terms, I recognized he wasn't anywhere as bad as I thought and was actually quite moderate and competent. And then I became a democrat in 2012 or so and moved left since then.
Trump is, admittedly, objectively worse than Obama. He has NO political experience, no grasp of any policies (Obama at least had some and was very educated on the issues). And he says a lot of dangerous and crazy things. However, the democrats act like he would be the apocalypse. They're more or less trying to turn him into the new Barry Goldwater, and even ripped off old Goldwater ads. And let's not forget the similarities between all the talk about nuclear codes and the Daisy ad.
All in all, I have no doubts a Trump presidency would be awful. However, I don't think it will be AS bad as the democrats act like (they would portray any republican at this point as just as bad if they were the nominee), and let's not forget Clinton wouldn't be great. She would be better, but not great. And honestly, I think giving a vote to Clinton out of fear just validates the DNC's mistreatment of Sanders and progressives and their persistent dissing of the left, so all a vote for Clinton would do is just extend the crappy status quo. Things aren't going to change until we push the system electorally, and until we are willing to pressure the parties to change things. They'll keep treating us like schmucks as long as we continue acting like them.
That being said, when you hear all of this shrill screaming about how "there's so much at stake" and that you have to "vote blue no matter who" and that you have a civic duty to support Clinton even if you don't like her, don't buy it. This is just DNC propaganda that's trying to intimidate and scare you into voting for them because they have nothing else to run on.
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. Vote your conscience, as Cruz would say. If you think that Trump would be good, then support him. If you think Clinton would be good, or are so scared of Trump you have to support her, do so. But don't diss people for voting third party and tell us we're wasting our vote or that there's so much at stake and we can't afford to mess around. The way I see it, we need to mess around. We need to stand up to the establishment, and nothing will ever change. So if your conscience is like mine and tells you to vote third party, Johnson, Stein, whomever, do so. It's the only way things will change. Don't be scared or intimidated. Just vote for whom you want.
On my use of Marx
So, since I can imagine some people referring to my regular uses of Marx as a sign I'm some sort of communist, so I decided I would nip this in the bud. I will admit that I do think Marx said a lot of interesting things that are accurate. However, I do want to make a point that one can see the world in a complex way in which they cherry pick parts of writers and philosophers they like, while ignoring the rest. I'm very much like this.
As I've said elsewhere, I have a particular dislike of the far left. Those who want to use revolutionary means to overthrow the system and establish communism. It doesn't work, it's extremely dangerous, and every time it has been tried things have been made worse. I like a lot of aspects of the current system. I just think we have improvement.
You see, in politics, we have this thing called the public policy cycle. Think of it as the scientific method of political science. It's a process in which problems are identified, agendas are set, options to solve the problem are weighed and evaluated, solutions are implemented, and then evaluated. After evaluating the solutions, new problems are identified if there are any and the cycle continues.
It's true that I use Marx a lot in discussing the problems, but I really only use Marx at the problem identification and perhaps some aspects of the agenda setting stage. I do not implement hardcore marxist solutions. My solutions are actually quite moderate and capitalist compared to Marxism. For example, basic income? Hardcore Marxists see it as a capitalist plot to placate the masses and stop them from seizing the means of production. Same with most of my other ideas. The only idea I have that even flirts with actual socialism is stuff like worker coops and workplace democracy. All in all, I'm just a very hard left "liberal" that wishes to reform the system via our current democratic means, and I wish to do so in a way that keeps the underlying structure of society in place, not replace it with something radical and probably unworkable. I just felt like this was worth discussing because I know how touchy our society can get when Marx is brought up.
Generally speaking though, educated people, free thinkers, etc., can discuss concepts and even agree with them in part, without accepting the whole thing as ideology. I see hardcore ideological worldviews, at least without some sense of self awareness of their subjectivity and flaws, as very dangerous, and I don't care what worldview we're talking about here. Extremism of any sort is dangerous, and life should not be predicated on some black and white sense of right and wrong. The world is grey. There's good and bad in everything. It doesn't matter how ideologically pure, or how evil you see someone or an ideology, most of the time, there will either be one fundamental flaw, or some redeemable qualities. A free thinker will be willing to grapple with all kinds of concepts while exercising judgment as to what is good and bad in addressing them. This is how I can bring up what I see are the redeemable qualities of Marx while ignoring that which I don't agree with.
As I've said elsewhere, I have a particular dislike of the far left. Those who want to use revolutionary means to overthrow the system and establish communism. It doesn't work, it's extremely dangerous, and every time it has been tried things have been made worse. I like a lot of aspects of the current system. I just think we have improvement.
You see, in politics, we have this thing called the public policy cycle. Think of it as the scientific method of political science. It's a process in which problems are identified, agendas are set, options to solve the problem are weighed and evaluated, solutions are implemented, and then evaluated. After evaluating the solutions, new problems are identified if there are any and the cycle continues.
It's true that I use Marx a lot in discussing the problems, but I really only use Marx at the problem identification and perhaps some aspects of the agenda setting stage. I do not implement hardcore marxist solutions. My solutions are actually quite moderate and capitalist compared to Marxism. For example, basic income? Hardcore Marxists see it as a capitalist plot to placate the masses and stop them from seizing the means of production. Same with most of my other ideas. The only idea I have that even flirts with actual socialism is stuff like worker coops and workplace democracy. All in all, I'm just a very hard left "liberal" that wishes to reform the system via our current democratic means, and I wish to do so in a way that keeps the underlying structure of society in place, not replace it with something radical and probably unworkable. I just felt like this was worth discussing because I know how touchy our society can get when Marx is brought up.
Generally speaking though, educated people, free thinkers, etc., can discuss concepts and even agree with them in part, without accepting the whole thing as ideology. I see hardcore ideological worldviews, at least without some sense of self awareness of their subjectivity and flaws, as very dangerous, and I don't care what worldview we're talking about here. Extremism of any sort is dangerous, and life should not be predicated on some black and white sense of right and wrong. The world is grey. There's good and bad in everything. It doesn't matter how ideologically pure, or how evil you see someone or an ideology, most of the time, there will either be one fundamental flaw, or some redeemable qualities. A free thinker will be willing to grapple with all kinds of concepts while exercising judgment as to what is good and bad in addressing them. This is how I can bring up what I see are the redeemable qualities of Marx while ignoring that which I don't agree with.
The religion problem with politics
So, as we know, the DNC discussed using Sanders' religion, or alleged lack thereof against him. This is because atheists have a serious electability problem in this country, and while people in many areas would vote for a Jew, they would not vote for an atheist. As a matter of fact, atheists, in terms of electability are one of the most hated minorities in America, minus socialists (which Bernie identifies as, although technically isn't in terms of policy).
I'm an atheist, and this angers and frustrates me. As a former Christian, I'll say that much of this fear of atheism is based on ignorance of atheists and religious indoctrination that tell people that atheists are immoral and bad. Since religion often tells people that they need God for morality, those who do not believe in God suffer in terms of being trustworthy and moral. To a typical rank and file Christian skeptical of atheism, how can one be moral as an atheist? They cannot because God is the source of all morality.
This is a serious problem in this country, and at its root, its responsible for a lot of other problems. To me, worldview is important. Having an epistemological worldview based on reality and backed up with fact is extremely important if we want to solve our problems. If you have a doctor, said doctor needs to be able to properly diagnose and treat you to cure you. A doctor that is unable to properly identify diseases and proscribe proper cures have sick patients. Society is the same way. How can we address our problems with society if people don't even have a fully functioning and coherent worldview through which to view the world and its events? I don't think people really grasp how serious some of our problems are in this country, and how fixable they are if only we choose to fix them. On the other hand, many people make problems out of things that are not problems at all. like gay marriage.
People see the world in fundamental different ways if they think morality is a set of rigid edicts given by a cosmic dictator than flexible social conventions based on advancing our human interests. If they think a deity is ultimately in control of the world, versus thinking that the world is this anarchistic, Darwinistic mess. If they think the world is broken because we don't obey arbitrary commands or ate some fruit we shouldn't have, versus it being broken because of said Darwinistic structure of the world. If they think their suffering or their toil gives them purpose, versus seeing it as pointless and unnecessarily cruel. These things matter. They influence how people see the world, what the problems are, and how to fix them. Again, how can we address and fix problems if we can't even tell accurately what they are?
I think my atheistic worldview is why I'm so out of sync with the rest of the country these days on politics. The republicans have a worldview heavily based on American protestant Christianity, and this involves opposition to gay marriage and abortion, while mixing some cultural perspectives with religion on economic issues (the "American civil religion"). Even the democrats, as I understand them, are out of sync with me. See my basic income article on Clinton for details, in which i explained these differences. Clinton believes people need to live up to their "God given potential". As an atheist, this concept makes no sense to me and I'm like "there is no purpose, there is no potential, this is just crap made up to turn us into willing slaves." And then you have Clinton and Kaine being relatively pro life, and only begrudgingly pro choice, etc.
Religion matters. Epistemology matters. And I see religion as a force in this world that misleads and deceives people. I see it as something that distorts their worldview. And, if we want to go back to the reference this blog is named after, I see those who cling to religion as the people chained up in Plato's cave. They don't see the world as it exists. They see it through a filter. They see it as shadows of what it actually is. This perspective gives them an inaccurate view of the world. And ironically, just like in Plato's example, those who are chained to the wall see those who left for the light, who see the world as it really is, as the corrupted ones. Which is why atheists can't get elected and why they're not trusted. We're not really immoral. Many of us are actually quite moral and principled. But our morality is based on a different, and arguably more accurate and in touch world view. Because they don't understand, they treat us with mistrust.
I would even go so far, if we were to apply conflict theory, to argue that religion is used by the rich and powerful to keep people in line and control them. It would make sense, if you want to control a mass of people, to keep them ignorant and build up a worldview around them that stops them from discussing important issues like economics and keeps them divided and conquered on the more minor stuff no one should care about. As Marx would say, it's the opium of the masses. It encourages people to address their suffering in unproductive ways like faith and relying on God to fix things, while discouraging the human action necessary to do so, or even being able to put two and two together that it is a serious problem.
All in all, the state of this nation is frustrating to someone like me. I wish more people would just get it. I wish they would see the world as I do. I wish they would use their brains to figure things out rather than relying on things like obedience and faith. Trust me, the world makes way more sense, and things come into focus when you throw that stuff out. Even if people don't come to the same conclusions as me, as long as their views on based on reason and evidence, I would be happy enough. I can at least work with that and we can begin to have some serious discussions on the issues rather than the fake unproductive dialogue we're having now. I can't work on distrust and character assassination that comes with the perception of atheists in this country. People won't even give us a chance because they see us as the devil, or at least influenced by him.
I'm an atheist, and this angers and frustrates me. As a former Christian, I'll say that much of this fear of atheism is based on ignorance of atheists and religious indoctrination that tell people that atheists are immoral and bad. Since religion often tells people that they need God for morality, those who do not believe in God suffer in terms of being trustworthy and moral. To a typical rank and file Christian skeptical of atheism, how can one be moral as an atheist? They cannot because God is the source of all morality.
This is a serious problem in this country, and at its root, its responsible for a lot of other problems. To me, worldview is important. Having an epistemological worldview based on reality and backed up with fact is extremely important if we want to solve our problems. If you have a doctor, said doctor needs to be able to properly diagnose and treat you to cure you. A doctor that is unable to properly identify diseases and proscribe proper cures have sick patients. Society is the same way. How can we address our problems with society if people don't even have a fully functioning and coherent worldview through which to view the world and its events? I don't think people really grasp how serious some of our problems are in this country, and how fixable they are if only we choose to fix them. On the other hand, many people make problems out of things that are not problems at all. like gay marriage.
People see the world in fundamental different ways if they think morality is a set of rigid edicts given by a cosmic dictator than flexible social conventions based on advancing our human interests. If they think a deity is ultimately in control of the world, versus thinking that the world is this anarchistic, Darwinistic mess. If they think the world is broken because we don't obey arbitrary commands or ate some fruit we shouldn't have, versus it being broken because of said Darwinistic structure of the world. If they think their suffering or their toil gives them purpose, versus seeing it as pointless and unnecessarily cruel. These things matter. They influence how people see the world, what the problems are, and how to fix them. Again, how can we address and fix problems if we can't even tell accurately what they are?
I think my atheistic worldview is why I'm so out of sync with the rest of the country these days on politics. The republicans have a worldview heavily based on American protestant Christianity, and this involves opposition to gay marriage and abortion, while mixing some cultural perspectives with religion on economic issues (the "American civil religion"). Even the democrats, as I understand them, are out of sync with me. See my basic income article on Clinton for details, in which i explained these differences. Clinton believes people need to live up to their "God given potential". As an atheist, this concept makes no sense to me and I'm like "there is no purpose, there is no potential, this is just crap made up to turn us into willing slaves." And then you have Clinton and Kaine being relatively pro life, and only begrudgingly pro choice, etc.
Religion matters. Epistemology matters. And I see religion as a force in this world that misleads and deceives people. I see it as something that distorts their worldview. And, if we want to go back to the reference this blog is named after, I see those who cling to religion as the people chained up in Plato's cave. They don't see the world as it exists. They see it through a filter. They see it as shadows of what it actually is. This perspective gives them an inaccurate view of the world. And ironically, just like in Plato's example, those who are chained to the wall see those who left for the light, who see the world as it really is, as the corrupted ones. Which is why atheists can't get elected and why they're not trusted. We're not really immoral. Many of us are actually quite moral and principled. But our morality is based on a different, and arguably more accurate and in touch world view. Because they don't understand, they treat us with mistrust.
I would even go so far, if we were to apply conflict theory, to argue that religion is used by the rich and powerful to keep people in line and control them. It would make sense, if you want to control a mass of people, to keep them ignorant and build up a worldview around them that stops them from discussing important issues like economics and keeps them divided and conquered on the more minor stuff no one should care about. As Marx would say, it's the opium of the masses. It encourages people to address their suffering in unproductive ways like faith and relying on God to fix things, while discouraging the human action necessary to do so, or even being able to put two and two together that it is a serious problem.
All in all, the state of this nation is frustrating to someone like me. I wish more people would just get it. I wish they would see the world as I do. I wish they would use their brains to figure things out rather than relying on things like obedience and faith. Trust me, the world makes way more sense, and things come into focus when you throw that stuff out. Even if people don't come to the same conclusions as me, as long as their views on based on reason and evidence, I would be happy enough. I can at least work with that and we can begin to have some serious discussions on the issues rather than the fake unproductive dialogue we're having now. I can't work on distrust and character assassination that comes with the perception of atheists in this country. People won't even give us a chance because they see us as the devil, or at least influenced by him.
Saturday, July 23, 2016
On Tim Kaine
So Hillary Clinton chose Tim Kaine as her vice presidential nominee. A lot of people are upset about this and consider it a screw you to progressives. In a way it is, but honestly, at this point the Clinton campaign wouldn't even be able to repair the damage they've done to themselves if they made Sanders their nominee if you ask me.
In a lot of ways, Kaine is a moderate. He's a lot like Mike Pence. The epitome of his party's establishment, without being overbearing about it. I see him as a dry and boring choice. He doesn't bring much to the ticket, but doesn't take away either. Since the way I see it, the democrats have already lost the progressive movement, they don't have much else to lose here. Yes, he's pro TPP. Yes, he's anti abortion in his personal views but not in his legal views. He's your standard moderate democrat. Nothing more, nothing less. My reaction to him is an overwhelming "meh."
In a lot of ways, Kaine is a moderate. He's a lot like Mike Pence. The epitome of his party's establishment, without being overbearing about it. I see him as a dry and boring choice. He doesn't bring much to the ticket, but doesn't take away either. Since the way I see it, the democrats have already lost the progressive movement, they don't have much else to lose here. Yes, he's pro TPP. Yes, he's anti abortion in his personal views but not in his legal views. He's your standard moderate democrat. Nothing more, nothing less. My reaction to him is an overwhelming "meh."
On the DNC email leaks
So, for those of you who haven't heard, like 20,000 DNC emails were leaked on wikileaks, discussing internal communications between officials in the DNC. I won't link them here, find them yourself, but from what's being discussed on Reddit, the results of this breach basically confirm what we've been suspecting in the Bernie camp for month.
The DNC has been colluding with the left wing media to spin its coverage more positively toward itself and HRC, and negatively toward Sanders. This is very much in line with Chomsky's propaganda model, which discusses how the media often forms relationships with people in power, and this biases media coverage positively toward these centers of power.
The DNC also has a significant anti Sanders bias. Some of this is more benign, in which they simply make him the butt of jokes or call him nasty names behind his back, but at the same time, they also appear to have done things like spy on his campaign, run negative media stories against him, influence discussion in online forums, and even talk about using his religion (or supposed lack thereof) against him. They also seemed to treat Clinton as the presumed nominee, and other candidates with some level of contempt.
All in all, this leak seems to confirm everything we've been suspecting for months. Media bias in favor of DNC narratives, DNC favoring Clinton over Sanders and others. I would not vote for these guys. They clearly don't respect us, and we shouldn't give them our votes.
The DNC has been colluding with the left wing media to spin its coverage more positively toward itself and HRC, and negatively toward Sanders. This is very much in line with Chomsky's propaganda model, which discusses how the media often forms relationships with people in power, and this biases media coverage positively toward these centers of power.
The DNC also has a significant anti Sanders bias. Some of this is more benign, in which they simply make him the butt of jokes or call him nasty names behind his back, but at the same time, they also appear to have done things like spy on his campaign, run negative media stories against him, influence discussion in online forums, and even talk about using his religion (or supposed lack thereof) against him. They also seemed to treat Clinton as the presumed nominee, and other candidates with some level of contempt.
All in all, this leak seems to confirm everything we've been suspecting for months. Media bias in favor of DNC narratives, DNC favoring Clinton over Sanders and others. I would not vote for these guys. They clearly don't respect us, and we shouldn't give them our votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)