So, a friend of mine shared this with me. This video involves a black person representing black lives matter, or at least talking about it, discussing the issue with Clinton, and Clinton basically acts extremely tone deaf and talks down to him. I am almost beyond words. All election, Hillary Clinton has been portrayed as this champion of black people, and that if you support Trump, you're a racist, and if you support Bernie or Stein you're privileged (although admittedly maybe there's a point with some Trump people). This narrative has been pushed all election, and it's really been pissing me off. And now Clinton goes and does something so tone deaf I'd almost rank it up there with Trump's taco bowl thing. Un-freaking-believable.
First, let's talk about what exactly she said. She said, in response to black lives matter being a primarily white problem, that if that's his logic she should talk only to white people about fixing the problem. Um...what? WHAT?! This is way more tone deaf than Sanders has ever supposedly been, and again, I suspect if that Trump said that he would be crucified by the media for doing so. She also said that she doesn't care about changing hearts and minds, only systems. Now, as someone who has interest in system changing, I tend to at least slightly agree on some issues, but dang, changing hearts and minds is a thing too, especially on this particular issue.
Look, here's the thing. Black Lives Matter is a problem that has to do with cops acting in ways that end up being systemically racist. They tend to react more violently toward blacks than toward whites assuming the same actions and the same crimes. You can change rules and procedures and stuff, but ultimately, cops have to make FIELD DECISIONS that require split second decision making, and if they are victim to implicitly racist attitudes those field decisions may have systemically racist consequences, like black people getting shot way more often even when not being particularly threatening.
That being said, a few things that need to be said that run directly counter to Clinton's comments here.
1) Whites DO need to listen to blacks on this issue. Whites talking only to other whites is a huge problem that leads to this issue, because whites living in an echo chamber don't understand blacks. White NEED TO LISTEN. Hillary Clinton NEEDS TO LISTEN. And she isn't. She's showing her "privilege" in cringey ways here. Go back to the public policy cycle I mentioned I mentioned in previous posts. Before we can address a problem, it needs to be defined. And black people have a problem with systemic racism that we're not going to understand unless we let them talk and define the problem to us.
2) This is a hearts and minds issue. You can regulate all you want, but again, we're talking police officers making split second decisions in the field, and their implicit racial biases perhaps playing a part in these their decision of whether they shoot or not. The best way to solve the issue is for whites to change, to become aware of these biases and try to grow out of them. Not ignoring them and pretending they don't exist. That being said, Clinton is dead wrong here.
What Clinton has said here was extremely cringey and a paramount example of white privilege. The same white privilege her campaign has accused my favorite candidates and many who think like me of this whole election. Hillary doesn't understand black lives matter. Hillary, I don't think, even understands the issue properly. And like she's done with Sanders supporters all election, she is talking down to and condescending those who disagree with her. She's showing worse social skills than I do, and, for a bit of self deprecation here, that's pretty darned bad.
I suspect that if anyone else had done this, CNN, MSNBC, and all the other propaganda arms of the democratic party would be spamming this stuff 24/7. If Sanders said it in the primary, he would be torn apart for it, and he has been attacked for far less. And if Trump said it, forget it. But Clinton? She's the democratic party declared champion of black people anywhere, the only candidate who "truly gets it", and that anyone who disagrees with her here is either racist or privileged. Meanwhile all I see here is her being extremely privileged. Gotta love those double standards though. Can't wait to see how CTR spins this one if it's even mentioned at all. I'm guessing they'll try to downplay it.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Saturday, August 20, 2016
More evidence the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders
So, some people don't think the Election Justice USA PDF is credible and that it's biased or something. Looking at the data itself, it looks reliable and trustworthy enough and uses good science, but whatever. Here's another PDF from Stanford University that implies Clinton stole the primary. Hopefully people will put more stock into an actual famous university arguing this stuff. I hate to pull an argument from authority, but it seems like it's the only thing we can do with people who bury their head in the sand.
This one is short so I can cover it more in depth. Much like Election Justice USA, this analysis looks at a lot of data related to how people voted, flagging suspicious patterns that may indicate vote rigging. Let's look into the details.
Paper trails
The author found significant differences in polling places with paper trails than areas without them. This is important because areas without paper trails are more susceptible to rigging and rigging is harder to prove. They found that on average, areas without paper trails were much more friendly to Clinton than areas with paper trails. No such correlation was found in 2008 either. Hmm, interesting...
Caucuses
They also analyzed data for caucuses, and only found off results in the two states (Iowa and Nevada) where voter suppression was reported. Also interesting...
Exit polls vs results
This was also covered in Election Justice USA's analysis, but there were also a lot of differences between exit polls and the results, and that these results generally tended to trend in favor of Hillary.
2008 vs 2016
To control for these results, data was compared against the 2008 election between Clinton and Obama and no suspicious results were found in 2008, but were found in 2016. Hmm....
Conclusion
As we know, there has been a lot of suspicious data suggesting that perhaps the results were rigged or otherwise skewed toward Clinton. There has been significantly more funny business going on in areas without paper trails, particularly in primary states (relative to caucus states). There has been a lot of differences between exit polls and the results that arguably can't be explained by the margin of error, and these results only happened this election.
This whole process is shady as heck. Of course, this isn't a smoking gun where someone is being caught literally red handed, but there's enough evidence to be reasonably suspicious of the results. Personally, I think the whole thing was rigged. I already knew this and posted on this before, but people didn't trust the other source for some reason, well, now we have Stanford jumping on board. Boom.
This one is short so I can cover it more in depth. Much like Election Justice USA, this analysis looks at a lot of data related to how people voted, flagging suspicious patterns that may indicate vote rigging. Let's look into the details.
Paper trails
The author found significant differences in polling places with paper trails than areas without them. This is important because areas without paper trails are more susceptible to rigging and rigging is harder to prove. They found that on average, areas without paper trails were much more friendly to Clinton than areas with paper trails. No such correlation was found in 2008 either. Hmm, interesting...
Caucuses
They also analyzed data for caucuses, and only found off results in the two states (Iowa and Nevada) where voter suppression was reported. Also interesting...
Exit polls vs results
This was also covered in Election Justice USA's analysis, but there were also a lot of differences between exit polls and the results, and that these results generally tended to trend in favor of Hillary.
2008 vs 2016
To control for these results, data was compared against the 2008 election between Clinton and Obama and no suspicious results were found in 2008, but were found in 2016. Hmm....
Conclusion
As we know, there has been a lot of suspicious data suggesting that perhaps the results were rigged or otherwise skewed toward Clinton. There has been significantly more funny business going on in areas without paper trails, particularly in primary states (relative to caucus states). There has been a lot of differences between exit polls and the results that arguably can't be explained by the margin of error, and these results only happened this election.
This whole process is shady as heck. Of course, this isn't a smoking gun where someone is being caught literally red handed, but there's enough evidence to be reasonably suspicious of the results. Personally, I think the whole thing was rigged. I already knew this and posted on this before, but people didn't trust the other source for some reason, well, now we have Stanford jumping on board. Boom.
Friday, August 19, 2016
Seriously greens? Leave the guy who asked Stein about spoilers on CNN alone
So, for those of you who don't know, recently there was a town hall on CNN that featured Jill Stein. One guy asked him a question about her being a potential spoiler like Nader in 2000, and was quickly assumed by many greens to be a Hillary plant. Some have even gone so far to doxx him and harass him on social media over it.
First of all, doxxing and harassing people isn't cool, and I've seen a disturbing amount of that happen this year. Second of all, looking into the matter, THE GUY IS AN EX BERNIE SUPPORTER. Beyond that, he's a Bernie supporter who talked a lot on social media about being pissed off at the democrats for them rigging the primary.
He doesn't seem to be on board with Stein because he's buying into the fear of Trump getting elected if he doesn't support Hillary. While I don't agree with such an approach, okay. Whatever.
But honestly, how do greens seriously think he's going to react after having his social media accounts harassed by tons of Stein supporters calling him a plant and saying nasty things to him? Do they think he's going to vote green? Honestly, if that was the perception I was given of the green party and I was reluctantly supporting Clinton, I would be telling them "screw you guys, you just solidified my vote for Clinton". Seriously, this behavior helps no one. It makes us all look like a bunch of angry jerks. And honestly, we need disaffected Sanders people like him to join movements outside of the democratic party, not drive them back to the party that screwed them.
First of all, doxxing and harassing people isn't cool, and I've seen a disturbing amount of that happen this year. Second of all, looking into the matter, THE GUY IS AN EX BERNIE SUPPORTER. Beyond that, he's a Bernie supporter who talked a lot on social media about being pissed off at the democrats for them rigging the primary.
He doesn't seem to be on board with Stein because he's buying into the fear of Trump getting elected if he doesn't support Hillary. While I don't agree with such an approach, okay. Whatever.
But honestly, how do greens seriously think he's going to react after having his social media accounts harassed by tons of Stein supporters calling him a plant and saying nasty things to him? Do they think he's going to vote green? Honestly, if that was the perception I was given of the green party and I was reluctantly supporting Clinton, I would be telling them "screw you guys, you just solidified my vote for Clinton". Seriously, this behavior helps no one. It makes us all look like a bunch of angry jerks. And honestly, we need disaffected Sanders people like him to join movements outside of the democratic party, not drive them back to the party that screwed them.
No, MGTOW isn't just about being childfree and not wanting a relationship...
So I ran into someone who claimed to be MGTOW and claimed to it was just about rejecting the LifeScript(TM) and doing their own thing. That while yes, some are sexist, the movement as a whole isn't or doesn't have to be. Yeah, no, it's actually sexist.
MGTOW is an acronym for a "manosphere" movement called "men going their own way." While they tend to reject traditional ways of living life like relationships, marriage, and children, it's quite a bit beyond that. It actually has a lot of sexist presumptions about women built into it, and generally tends to imply or explicitly state that they're parasites or succubi who are only in a relationship with you to use you and take advantage of you. They reject the concept of "love" and believe women just want to get easy access to money, and use their sexuality to do this.
I don't deny some women can be scummy people who do things MGTOW people like to talk about. I mean, we've all heard of the woman who got pregnant intentionally because she wanted a kid and thought that the man would warm up to it, etc. But MGTOW, like many other sexist "manosphere" movements like the red pill, men's rights activists, etc., tend to go beyond that. They demonize women in general and even use acronyms like "all women are like that" to make their points. They view relations between men and women through this skewed relationship in which the women wish to exploit men as if they're employers when I start going on about wage slavery and basic income. They think marriage is a way to trap men and that these institutions are made, or at least used by women, to exploit them and turn them into slaves.
I have no doubt that there are many disadvantages to relationships or that some women can be crappy. I don't even doubt that there are some issues and double standards with some aspects of our laws regarding marriage and divorce. They were designed for a time when men and women fulfilled certain roles, and while a lot has changed for women since then, the same obligations sometimes still persist for men. There are legitimate problems here. And even from my perspective that's critical of capitalism, I tend to view marriage and childbearing as an institution that traps people by increasing their overall financial dependence on employers (an important distinction here is that I define the problem as having to do with "wage slavery" though).
And, I'm going to be honest. I'm strongly "childfree" (I never want to have children for a multitude of reasons and the very idea is extremely unattractive), and I tend to have mixed views on marriage and relationships. I don't tend to involve myself in many relationships because I generally don't see a point of being involved in one for the sake of just being involved with one, and really have only had an interest in a handful of people throughout my life. I have very strict standards for dating, and I have no interest in dating 99% of women out there. All things considered, I buck the "LifeScript(TM)", I have no interest in what most people want on a lot of life milestones.
But you know what? I'm not a MGTOW, because I'm not a sexist jerk. I don't turn my rejection of the things above, and admission of some problems they point out, into a political statement that more or less says "women are evil succubi/parasites and I should run away as far as I can from them." Women are people, some are good, some are bad. They have needs and desires just like men do. And just because I don't desire a relationship with an overwhelming majority of them doesn't mean that they're bad, just that we're incompatible. Some of them definitely are bad, but the same can be said for men. People are people.
So, no, MGTOW isn't just about being childfree and rejecting relationships. It's much more ideological in nature and much more sexist. If you still don't believe me, check their website, which is full of sexism against women, and check their subreddit, which is even worse in my opinion. You can do the same thing as a MGTOW and be a much better person for it just by dropping the MGTOW bullcrap. You can not seek relationships or marriage and children to your heart's desire and the only reason you really need is "because I don't want those things", period, end of story. But when you subscribe to MGTOW, you're taking on these horrifying sexist attitudes toward women, which might have some legitimacy toward a subgroup of women while being unapplicable to women as a whole. And honestly, I see such a mentality as almost like a cult or toxic ideology. Reject the "manosphere", and all the sexist BS that goes with it. You don't need it and it just makes you look like a jerk.
MGTOW is an acronym for a "manosphere" movement called "men going their own way." While they tend to reject traditional ways of living life like relationships, marriage, and children, it's quite a bit beyond that. It actually has a lot of sexist presumptions about women built into it, and generally tends to imply or explicitly state that they're parasites or succubi who are only in a relationship with you to use you and take advantage of you. They reject the concept of "love" and believe women just want to get easy access to money, and use their sexuality to do this.
I don't deny some women can be scummy people who do things MGTOW people like to talk about. I mean, we've all heard of the woman who got pregnant intentionally because she wanted a kid and thought that the man would warm up to it, etc. But MGTOW, like many other sexist "manosphere" movements like the red pill, men's rights activists, etc., tend to go beyond that. They demonize women in general and even use acronyms like "all women are like that" to make their points. They view relations between men and women through this skewed relationship in which the women wish to exploit men as if they're employers when I start going on about wage slavery and basic income. They think marriage is a way to trap men and that these institutions are made, or at least used by women, to exploit them and turn them into slaves.
I have no doubt that there are many disadvantages to relationships or that some women can be crappy. I don't even doubt that there are some issues and double standards with some aspects of our laws regarding marriage and divorce. They were designed for a time when men and women fulfilled certain roles, and while a lot has changed for women since then, the same obligations sometimes still persist for men. There are legitimate problems here. And even from my perspective that's critical of capitalism, I tend to view marriage and childbearing as an institution that traps people by increasing their overall financial dependence on employers (an important distinction here is that I define the problem as having to do with "wage slavery" though).
And, I'm going to be honest. I'm strongly "childfree" (I never want to have children for a multitude of reasons and the very idea is extremely unattractive), and I tend to have mixed views on marriage and relationships. I don't tend to involve myself in many relationships because I generally don't see a point of being involved in one for the sake of just being involved with one, and really have only had an interest in a handful of people throughout my life. I have very strict standards for dating, and I have no interest in dating 99% of women out there. All things considered, I buck the "LifeScript(TM)", I have no interest in what most people want on a lot of life milestones.
But you know what? I'm not a MGTOW, because I'm not a sexist jerk. I don't turn my rejection of the things above, and admission of some problems they point out, into a political statement that more or less says "women are evil succubi/parasites and I should run away as far as I can from them." Women are people, some are good, some are bad. They have needs and desires just like men do. And just because I don't desire a relationship with an overwhelming majority of them doesn't mean that they're bad, just that we're incompatible. Some of them definitely are bad, but the same can be said for men. People are people.
So, no, MGTOW isn't just about being childfree and rejecting relationships. It's much more ideological in nature and much more sexist. If you still don't believe me, check their website, which is full of sexism against women, and check their subreddit, which is even worse in my opinion. You can do the same thing as a MGTOW and be a much better person for it just by dropping the MGTOW bullcrap. You can not seek relationships or marriage and children to your heart's desire and the only reason you really need is "because I don't want those things", period, end of story. But when you subscribe to MGTOW, you're taking on these horrifying sexist attitudes toward women, which might have some legitimacy toward a subgroup of women while being unapplicable to women as a whole. And honestly, I see such a mentality as almost like a cult or toxic ideology. Reject the "manosphere", and all the sexist BS that goes with it. You don't need it and it just makes you look like a jerk.
Jill Stein and basic income clarification
On the recent town hall on CNN Jill Stein clarified her position on basic income. (By the way, she did very well at this town hall in my opinion). She said that she sees it more as a visionary goal and that it's not something she plans on implementing. Some people are disappointed by this, but I figured as much. She never really put it at the forefront of her campaign like green jobs and student loan debt. Still, I'm pleased with this, and a lite form of decentralized socialism, are in the platform.
Look, I don't expect all my problems to be solved in 4 years, and change to be so swift that society looks radically different in just 4 years. I understand progress takes decades to accomplish, and I think just getting the idea out there and raising awareness for what our society can be rather than what it is, is good enough. Stein still takes enough steps where I think we will be in a much better place in just 4-8 years, and I would be happy for a step in that direction.
Heck, as someone who doesn't expect her to win, my reasons for voting for her are more visionary than anything. I have said it time and time again, the democratic party is stubborn and lives for the status quo, it needs to be pressured to move to the left, and I believe third parties are an important safety valve through which to put pressure on them. And we need to think big.
The reason I don't settle for the democrats' approach to "incremental change" is because it has a "cable company runaround" (mildly NSFW due to South Park) flavor to it. It's not that their style of incremental change is a necessity here, it's that the democratic party doesn't want to try and has no interest in moving to the left or seriously considering these kinds of proposals. It's too busy sucking up that sweet sweet wall street money and only pretending to care about us. This election, it has done nothing but condescend to us, tell us we can't get what we want, and bully us into settling for less because we have no other viable choice. It has its agenda, it's doing what it wants to do, and we better get on board or else. This isn't real incremental change. They're giving us the runaround.
That being said, yes, it is disappointing that Stein isn't going to explicitly focus on basic income, but considering how she's more of a visionary candidate than a practical one with a real chance of winning, vision is more important than substance. I've said this from the beginning. As such, as far as I'm concerned, the greens should think big and pressure the system to moving in a positive direction and making real positive change. I do want to see basic income implemented some day, but I don't realistically see it being a hot topic for a good 10-20 years or so, after whoever we are voting for now has left office. Still, we can begin to build groundwork for it now, and it starts with a progressive movement toward more popular goals like universal healthcare.
Look, I don't expect all my problems to be solved in 4 years, and change to be so swift that society looks radically different in just 4 years. I understand progress takes decades to accomplish, and I think just getting the idea out there and raising awareness for what our society can be rather than what it is, is good enough. Stein still takes enough steps where I think we will be in a much better place in just 4-8 years, and I would be happy for a step in that direction.
Heck, as someone who doesn't expect her to win, my reasons for voting for her are more visionary than anything. I have said it time and time again, the democratic party is stubborn and lives for the status quo, it needs to be pressured to move to the left, and I believe third parties are an important safety valve through which to put pressure on them. And we need to think big.
The reason I don't settle for the democrats' approach to "incremental change" is because it has a "cable company runaround" (mildly NSFW due to South Park) flavor to it. It's not that their style of incremental change is a necessity here, it's that the democratic party doesn't want to try and has no interest in moving to the left or seriously considering these kinds of proposals. It's too busy sucking up that sweet sweet wall street money and only pretending to care about us. This election, it has done nothing but condescend to us, tell us we can't get what we want, and bully us into settling for less because we have no other viable choice. It has its agenda, it's doing what it wants to do, and we better get on board or else. This isn't real incremental change. They're giving us the runaround.
That being said, yes, it is disappointing that Stein isn't going to explicitly focus on basic income, but considering how she's more of a visionary candidate than a practical one with a real chance of winning, vision is more important than substance. I've said this from the beginning. As such, as far as I'm concerned, the greens should think big and pressure the system to moving in a positive direction and making real positive change. I do want to see basic income implemented some day, but I don't realistically see it being a hot topic for a good 10-20 years or so, after whoever we are voting for now has left office. Still, we can begin to build groundwork for it now, and it starts with a progressive movement toward more popular goals like universal healthcare.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
So let's talk about how badly Trump is imploding the republican party
I'm going to hold off on doing my normal election update for now, I might do it in the near future or put it off until there's more data. I want to talk about larger changes to the electoral college system going on here. Not just what's going on this year (although maybe some of that), but what will happen if trends continue. The republicans are in a downward spiral. They are losing ground this election badly. States that were once swing are turning into democratic strongholds, and states that were republican strongholds are becoming swing states or at risk for doing so in the future. It's hard to know if trends will continue or if this is just a one time think because Trump, but I've been noticing since 2008 it's been very difficult for a republican to win the presidency these days.
Let's look of some polling averages that my regular election updates won't necessarily cover since I typically focus on those with margins under 3-4% or so.
First, let's look at the current polling averages of some "swing states" that aren't even considered swing states any more.
Colorado - 10.8% Clinton
New Hampshire - 8.2% Clinton
Pennsylvania - 9.2% Clinton
Virginia - 11.2% Clinton
Wisconsin - 9.4% Clinton
Now, let's look at the trends these states have had in the past.
Colorado - Typically known to flip either way, but before 2008, was generally more red than blue. This state seems to have realigned itself along democratic lines in recent election cycles. Even then this is the first election it's up by double digits.
New Hampshire - Looking at it in context, New Hampshire isn't doing anything unusual. While in the Bush era they were more swing, they've been more consistent democratic voters since 2008, and they've voted by fairly large margins before here.
Pennsylvania - As I've said earlier posts, PA is a swing state in name only. Its margins are sometimes within swing state levels, but it's reliably blue in presidential elections. This is not out of the ordinary here.
Virginia - Virginia has been reliably red until 2008. Since then, it's become more of a swing state, and this election, it's more or less solidly blue. This is a recent development, since I seem to remember last election it was the one state I was unsure of in my electoral projections, and the one state I actually got wrong. To see it up by double digits is a surprise.
Wisconsin - Wisconsin was really only swing during the Bush era, and in the Obama era, it was more strongly blue. There are no real changes going on this time.
So, we're not seeing huge changes in these states this year for the most part, although some states like Colorado and Virginia,which were former swing states, are turning more blue.
This is bad enough, since the republicans need a lot of these states to win. After all, the democrats start out with more electoral votes going into the election, where it's like they start halfway to the finish line to begin with. But wait, it gets worse for the republicans. Let's look at what's going on in more traditionally red states.
Arizona - Trump 0.3%
Georgia - Clinton 0.3%
Indiana - Trump 8.6%
Kansas - Trump 11.0%
Louisiana - Trump 12.0%
Mississippi - Trump 9.0%
Missouri - Trump 5.3%
North Carolina - Clinton 2.0%
South Carolina - Trump 3.5%
Texas - Trump 8.4%
Utah - 10.5%
I mean, if you look at these guys' voting records, you can do that here to your heart's desire, you can see these are solidly red states. They might have gone blue once or twice, maybe in 1996 or 2008, which were bad years for republicans, but other than that, when I think of them, I think red.
But as we can see, some of them are now REALLY swing state status, with some like Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina being included in my electoral analyses, and the others are well within similar margins of other swing states mentioned above. Missouri has weaker margins for Trump than any of the five states mentioned above. South Carolina has little polling data, but what exists shows questionable margins too. Indiana and TEXAS have weaker margins than four of those five states (Texas is the biggest reliably red state there is). Mississippi, Kansas, Utah, and Louisiana now have similar margins to the most strongly blue states on that list.
It's hard to know if there's a long term trend here or if the people really just hate Trump, I think it's a combination of both. I mean, the republicans have been falling apart since 2008 and just aren't recovering, and they're just turning into increasingly worse versions of themselves like they're Majin Buu or something (that's a dragonball z reference for non anime fans). Even with the democrats being unpopular and not really having their act together this time, they're still winning by these insane margins. Some projections, including mine, have Clinton winning the election comfortably with no trouble at this point. And traditionally swing states are now polling just as strongly blue as much of the south, including republican strongholds like Texas.
If this trend continues and isn't a one time thing caused by Trump just being that awful of a candidate, then the republicans are dying out as they exist. It's hard to know which way it will go. On the one hand there is a clear generational gap in politics with modern conservatives primarily appealing to older voters and largely alienating younger voters. On the other hand, Trump is an extraordinarily weak candidate and someone else could have likely been a stronger opponent of Clinton's. Regardless, considering how much the GOP would have to dig themselves out of the hole to win the electoral college if this were just an ordinary post 2008 election, they still would be screwed. For the south to be just as in reach for the democrats as traditional swing states are to the republicans is just embarrassing and shows how badly the party is doing on a national level. The only reason they hold power locally is gerrymandering, voter suppression, and low voter turnout. When everyone turns out in presidential elections, the democrats wipe the floor with them. I expect them to fall apart or change their ideology significantly to remain relevant in the next few election cycles.
Let's look of some polling averages that my regular election updates won't necessarily cover since I typically focus on those with margins under 3-4% or so.
First, let's look at the current polling averages of some "swing states" that aren't even considered swing states any more.
Colorado - 10.8% Clinton
New Hampshire - 8.2% Clinton
Pennsylvania - 9.2% Clinton
Virginia - 11.2% Clinton
Wisconsin - 9.4% Clinton
Now, let's look at the trends these states have had in the past.
Colorado - Typically known to flip either way, but before 2008, was generally more red than blue. This state seems to have realigned itself along democratic lines in recent election cycles. Even then this is the first election it's up by double digits.
New Hampshire - Looking at it in context, New Hampshire isn't doing anything unusual. While in the Bush era they were more swing, they've been more consistent democratic voters since 2008, and they've voted by fairly large margins before here.
Pennsylvania - As I've said earlier posts, PA is a swing state in name only. Its margins are sometimes within swing state levels, but it's reliably blue in presidential elections. This is not out of the ordinary here.
Virginia - Virginia has been reliably red until 2008. Since then, it's become more of a swing state, and this election, it's more or less solidly blue. This is a recent development, since I seem to remember last election it was the one state I was unsure of in my electoral projections, and the one state I actually got wrong. To see it up by double digits is a surprise.
Wisconsin - Wisconsin was really only swing during the Bush era, and in the Obama era, it was more strongly blue. There are no real changes going on this time.
So, we're not seeing huge changes in these states this year for the most part, although some states like Colorado and Virginia,which were former swing states, are turning more blue.
This is bad enough, since the republicans need a lot of these states to win. After all, the democrats start out with more electoral votes going into the election, where it's like they start halfway to the finish line to begin with. But wait, it gets worse for the republicans. Let's look at what's going on in more traditionally red states.
Arizona - Trump 0.3%
Georgia - Clinton 0.3%
Indiana - Trump 8.6%
Kansas - Trump 11.0%
Louisiana - Trump 12.0%
Mississippi - Trump 9.0%
Missouri - Trump 5.3%
North Carolina - Clinton 2.0%
South Carolina - Trump 3.5%
Texas - Trump 8.4%
Utah - 10.5%
I mean, if you look at these guys' voting records, you can do that here to your heart's desire, you can see these are solidly red states. They might have gone blue once or twice, maybe in 1996 or 2008, which were bad years for republicans, but other than that, when I think of them, I think red.
But as we can see, some of them are now REALLY swing state status, with some like Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina being included in my electoral analyses, and the others are well within similar margins of other swing states mentioned above. Missouri has weaker margins for Trump than any of the five states mentioned above. South Carolina has little polling data, but what exists shows questionable margins too. Indiana and TEXAS have weaker margins than four of those five states (Texas is the biggest reliably red state there is). Mississippi, Kansas, Utah, and Louisiana now have similar margins to the most strongly blue states on that list.
It's hard to know if there's a long term trend here or if the people really just hate Trump, I think it's a combination of both. I mean, the republicans have been falling apart since 2008 and just aren't recovering, and they're just turning into increasingly worse versions of themselves like they're Majin Buu or something (that's a dragonball z reference for non anime fans). Even with the democrats being unpopular and not really having their act together this time, they're still winning by these insane margins. Some projections, including mine, have Clinton winning the election comfortably with no trouble at this point. And traditionally swing states are now polling just as strongly blue as much of the south, including republican strongholds like Texas.
If this trend continues and isn't a one time thing caused by Trump just being that awful of a candidate, then the republicans are dying out as they exist. It's hard to know which way it will go. On the one hand there is a clear generational gap in politics with modern conservatives primarily appealing to older voters and largely alienating younger voters. On the other hand, Trump is an extraordinarily weak candidate and someone else could have likely been a stronger opponent of Clinton's. Regardless, considering how much the GOP would have to dig themselves out of the hole to win the electoral college if this were just an ordinary post 2008 election, they still would be screwed. For the south to be just as in reach for the democrats as traditional swing states are to the republicans is just embarrassing and shows how badly the party is doing on a national level. The only reason they hold power locally is gerrymandering, voter suppression, and low voter turnout. When everyone turns out in presidential elections, the democrats wipe the floor with them. I expect them to fall apart or change their ideology significantly to remain relevant in the next few election cycles.
The US is getting rid of private prisons, yay!
I won't spend too much time on this since this isn't an issue I discuss deeply and only have a surface understanding of, but a recent study came out citing safety concerns at private prisons and US just agreed to phase out the use of them.
I really think it's stupid we even considered the idea of using them. I mean, the conditions in those prisons are more or less akin to slavery and corporations basically used them for cheap labor. It also gave the government incentives to lock people up, which the corporations then used for profit. It's really a horrifying concept.
Either way, we're getting rid of them, which is a good thing, and I just felt like I should write a small something on it.
I really think it's stupid we even considered the idea of using them. I mean, the conditions in those prisons are more or less akin to slavery and corporations basically used them for cheap labor. It also gave the government incentives to lock people up, which the corporations then used for profit. It's really a horrifying concept.
Either way, we're getting rid of them, which is a good thing, and I just felt like I should write a small something on it.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
How to defeat the alt right
I had an interesting debate earlier about this, and figured it was worth turning into a full blown post.
The way I see it, the alt right's rise and success in recent years is really a backlash against a failure of liberalism to be as open and inclusive as it says it is on the surface. I would argue a mix of toxic political correctness, identity politics, and a bad approach to social welfare and solving issues are why it's successful. Heck, I'll go further, this is a huge reason why conservatism among the white working class is a thing to. If you want to stop the alt right, you have to treat it like you would a fire, by starving it of the fuel that it needs to survive.
Toxic political correctness and identity politics
We've seen it a lot this election, and I've even been on the brunt of it a lot. I've even talked about it here before. The left is going overboard talking about feminism, and anti racism, and political correctness. Now, there's nothing wrong with these things, properly explained. There ARE problems with inequality between women and men, between whites and minorities. And these problems deserve consideration, understanding, and solutions. However, they're not used in that way this election. They're used to bully and browbeat people into line. They're used to censor people, to shame people. Any criticism of Hillary Clinton means you're a sexist. Any desire to show independent thought and fall in line while happening to be white, male, or both means that you're privileged. That you can afford to risk the next four years while these poor other people can't. You bully people and shame them in an attempt to make them fall into line, and what happens? People stop caring about the legitimate issues raised here. They don't care if they're seen as racist or sexist any more, because the left declared war on them for daring to not think in lockstep with them. They might even adopt the opposite attitudes, joining MRA groups if they hate feminism, etc. They also might vote for Trump, who "says what he means" and isn't afraid to say offensive things and shy from controversy.
Clinton style leftism, I'd argue, is largely to blame here. Because when you focus on identity politics and use them to bully people who don't fall in line, they're going to reject those values wholesale, even if there are legitimate issues raised here.
And I do want to insist that yes, there are issues to be raised here. Racism, sexism, and privilege are REAL concepts. They make perfect sense in a sociological paradigm and explained PROPERLY. But the left has a horrible time of marketing those concepts, and actually make enemies out of potential allies here.
A fractured approach to social programs fueled by identity politics
This is, by far, one of my big issues with the democratic party with Hillary Clinton as the nominee. I mentioned it in my post at the convention, the democratic party is a huge tent, trying to appeal to this group, and that group, and the other group, all kinds of racial groups, women, the disabled, etc., and they want to pass all these good feel good programs for them.
But at the end of the day, these programs don't help everyone. They help people in limited situations, and leave others who don't fit their narrow criteria no better off. Even worse, using tax dollars, they can redistribute money from those who need help...to others who need help.
This leaves people with a "what about me?" situation, to which the democratic party will start going on about privilege again, and start shaming you, and when you push for more comprehensive help, they say this is the best they can do, and yada yada.
And then we have stuff like affirmative action and quotas that insist we need to have so many of people from all these different groups. Now, when you take away limited amounts of opportunity and give it to something else, how is the white working class going to act? They're going to get angry and oppose these things, even at the risk of being seen as racist and sexist.
The left doesn't have to act this way. I've put forward a vision to the left that is far more inclusive and universal. UNIVERSAL healthcare, UNIVERSAL basic income, free college, etc. These are programs that help everyone, the privileged and the nonprivileged.
The democratic party as it exists reminds me of the caricature I grew up with in the 90s and 2000s of how they help all these different groups while giving the white working class the finger. A party that puts feel good ideas that don't do anything above action. This election, we could have chosen an inclusive, uniting candidate who pushes for real solutions to all. Instead, we got Clinton, a return to the toxic 90s democratic politics that gave the democrats a bad name for me before I woke up and joined the left.
This is not the democratic party of Obama or Sanders, this is the party of Clinton, and this Clinton style liberalism is TOXIC. It's divisive, it splits up blacks and whites, men and women, gay and straight. It makes them enemies, when they should be allies.
And this is how we get conservatives, who are white and middle class and could benefit from a good range of social policies if properly implemented, instead complaining about their tax dollars. Because when the democrats ignore certain groups of people, and even shame them for existing and not thinking in lockstep, once again, they're going to make enemies.
Immigration
Immigration is a bit more complex of an issue. I actually think the left has some good points here and shouldn't back down. At the same time, they do need to work on their receptiveness on hearing some criticisms of immigration that may be legitimate. As a friend of mine who is starting to lean toward the alt right mindset told me, when people don't listen to the concerns people have, they end up supporting fascists like in Europe, or even Trump if we want to go by America.
In defense of the left, especially in America, I don't think there's a lot of problems with immigration. The economic effects are generally more positive I think, with them not "stealing" as many jobs as one would think, and actually contributing back into the economy. I don't think they represent a long term cultural threat to the US, and will eventually be naturalized. They aren't sucking up welfare either, they are ineligible unless they're also committing identity theft. I mean, a lot of right wing arguments are bunk here, and should be called out and corrected. We really need more education on the matter, not ignorance and xenophobia.
However, this isn't to say there aren't concerns. I've had the far left political correctness police get huffy at the concept of making English the language of the United States. I mean, let me get this straight, we're getting to the point where we're forcing people to take Spanish in school and college, but we think it's incorrect to make immigrants learn English? What's wrong with this picture? The fact is the far left tries to accommodate diverse groups of people while alienating the mainstream, and it's ridiculous. I don't think it's a lot to ask for immigrants to obey our laws, don't demand changes to our customs (more of a problem in Europe), and learn our language and adapt enough to functionally be a member of our society. Not necessarily give up their ethnic identity wholesale, I do believe the melting pot stuff to an extent, but at least conform to the extent that they are able to function in our society without demanding the locals conform to them. I think that's a huge thing that pisses a lot of people off. Immigrants are guests in our country, we shouldn't have a lift a finger to conform to them. We shouldn't have to learn their language or be sensitive to their culture, they should conform to ours, they joined OUR society, not the other way around. I don't think that's a lot to ask.
And as far as Europe goes, they might have a bigger problem over there. Muslims coming from the Middle East and Africa seem particularly unwilling to conform due to their religion, and are also making some demands of locals that the locals get offended at the very idea of. Like getting rid of octoberfest or having halal foods (which is barbaric) or expecting locals to fast in their presence during Ramadan or asking locals not to walk their dogs in their neighborhood. When you go into a country and start telling the locals what they should be doing to accommodate you, they're going to be right in telling you to screw off and go back to where you came from. And when the left tells you that you're racist or sexist or intolerant or privileged, once again, you're going to make enemies out of potential allies and possibly radicalize those people in response. Which is what the alt right is, the radicalization of right wing ideas in the face of being ignored or even bullied for thinking the way they do.
Bringing it all together/Conclusion
Look, the left has a lot to offer our politics here. And they're right on a lot of things. I think political correctness is generally a good thing. I think feminism is generally a good thing. I think anti racism is generally a good thing. I think immigration is largely benign, especially in the United States. I do want to emphasize this. I actually do identify closer to the left than the right here.
However, a particularly toxic, even "weaponized" strain of these politics is going around poisoning our dialogue and creating a radical right wing pushback known as the alt right. When you have these weaponized politics put out there to bully, shame, and silence dissent among people, you're eventually going to create a movement of people who've had enough who will be relatively radical themselves and push back against these things. When you have a platform that appeals to everyone but whites, males, and the middle class, don't be surprised when you lose these folks. When you insist natives to a society have to conform to the ways of immigrants, don't be surprised when you lose those folks.
Look, I want a strong left. I want an inclusive left. I do believe the concerns of marginalized groups is important, but you need to tie up all of these groups behind a common cause, and you need to bring the white working and middle class into the fold. Not by shaming them, but by incentivizing them. As long as we're divided by identity politics, as long as we balkanize ourselves into these different groups, and push these politics of division, we will never be united toward a common goal. I would like to see more people recognize that many of these problems have a common thread in them, and something we all need to come together to deal with. They mostly stem from the inadequacies of the status quo and our love affair with neoliberal capitalism. And we need to see things more in class terms. Despite our differences, I believe Africans Americans living in poor inner city areas and whites living in rural areas have a lot in common. They both suffer hardships and are on the wrong end of a screwed up economic system that doesn't give a crap about them. Instead of pitting these groups against one another, we should be uniting them for a common cause that is mutually beneficial.
Then again, maybe that's exactly why our politics looks like it does. Maybe both sides like to play dog whistle politics and keep people disunited and fighting amongst themselves. Because while we do that, the rich continue taking advantage of us and laugh all the way to the bank. Our politicians, despite being at odds with one another politically, end up being bought by the same corporations and special interests and are actually good buddies behind the scenes. Our political discourse becomes mere theater while the puppet masters are on the same side and enjoy us fighting amongst ourselves. So maybe this is intentional and by design. Who knows. All I know is if we ever want to actually make the world better, we need to focus on our real problems that we all have in common rather than fighting amongst ourselves over identity politics and scraps.
The way I see it, the alt right's rise and success in recent years is really a backlash against a failure of liberalism to be as open and inclusive as it says it is on the surface. I would argue a mix of toxic political correctness, identity politics, and a bad approach to social welfare and solving issues are why it's successful. Heck, I'll go further, this is a huge reason why conservatism among the white working class is a thing to. If you want to stop the alt right, you have to treat it like you would a fire, by starving it of the fuel that it needs to survive.
Toxic political correctness and identity politics
We've seen it a lot this election, and I've even been on the brunt of it a lot. I've even talked about it here before. The left is going overboard talking about feminism, and anti racism, and political correctness. Now, there's nothing wrong with these things, properly explained. There ARE problems with inequality between women and men, between whites and minorities. And these problems deserve consideration, understanding, and solutions. However, they're not used in that way this election. They're used to bully and browbeat people into line. They're used to censor people, to shame people. Any criticism of Hillary Clinton means you're a sexist. Any desire to show independent thought and fall in line while happening to be white, male, or both means that you're privileged. That you can afford to risk the next four years while these poor other people can't. You bully people and shame them in an attempt to make them fall into line, and what happens? People stop caring about the legitimate issues raised here. They don't care if they're seen as racist or sexist any more, because the left declared war on them for daring to not think in lockstep with them. They might even adopt the opposite attitudes, joining MRA groups if they hate feminism, etc. They also might vote for Trump, who "says what he means" and isn't afraid to say offensive things and shy from controversy.
Clinton style leftism, I'd argue, is largely to blame here. Because when you focus on identity politics and use them to bully people who don't fall in line, they're going to reject those values wholesale, even if there are legitimate issues raised here.
And I do want to insist that yes, there are issues to be raised here. Racism, sexism, and privilege are REAL concepts. They make perfect sense in a sociological paradigm and explained PROPERLY. But the left has a horrible time of marketing those concepts, and actually make enemies out of potential allies here.
A fractured approach to social programs fueled by identity politics
This is, by far, one of my big issues with the democratic party with Hillary Clinton as the nominee. I mentioned it in my post at the convention, the democratic party is a huge tent, trying to appeal to this group, and that group, and the other group, all kinds of racial groups, women, the disabled, etc., and they want to pass all these good feel good programs for them.
But at the end of the day, these programs don't help everyone. They help people in limited situations, and leave others who don't fit their narrow criteria no better off. Even worse, using tax dollars, they can redistribute money from those who need help...to others who need help.
This leaves people with a "what about me?" situation, to which the democratic party will start going on about privilege again, and start shaming you, and when you push for more comprehensive help, they say this is the best they can do, and yada yada.
And then we have stuff like affirmative action and quotas that insist we need to have so many of people from all these different groups. Now, when you take away limited amounts of opportunity and give it to something else, how is the white working class going to act? They're going to get angry and oppose these things, even at the risk of being seen as racist and sexist.
The left doesn't have to act this way. I've put forward a vision to the left that is far more inclusive and universal. UNIVERSAL healthcare, UNIVERSAL basic income, free college, etc. These are programs that help everyone, the privileged and the nonprivileged.
The democratic party as it exists reminds me of the caricature I grew up with in the 90s and 2000s of how they help all these different groups while giving the white working class the finger. A party that puts feel good ideas that don't do anything above action. This election, we could have chosen an inclusive, uniting candidate who pushes for real solutions to all. Instead, we got Clinton, a return to the toxic 90s democratic politics that gave the democrats a bad name for me before I woke up and joined the left.
This is not the democratic party of Obama or Sanders, this is the party of Clinton, and this Clinton style liberalism is TOXIC. It's divisive, it splits up blacks and whites, men and women, gay and straight. It makes them enemies, when they should be allies.
And this is how we get conservatives, who are white and middle class and could benefit from a good range of social policies if properly implemented, instead complaining about their tax dollars. Because when the democrats ignore certain groups of people, and even shame them for existing and not thinking in lockstep, once again, they're going to make enemies.
Immigration
Immigration is a bit more complex of an issue. I actually think the left has some good points here and shouldn't back down. At the same time, they do need to work on their receptiveness on hearing some criticisms of immigration that may be legitimate. As a friend of mine who is starting to lean toward the alt right mindset told me, when people don't listen to the concerns people have, they end up supporting fascists like in Europe, or even Trump if we want to go by America.
In defense of the left, especially in America, I don't think there's a lot of problems with immigration. The economic effects are generally more positive I think, with them not "stealing" as many jobs as one would think, and actually contributing back into the economy. I don't think they represent a long term cultural threat to the US, and will eventually be naturalized. They aren't sucking up welfare either, they are ineligible unless they're also committing identity theft. I mean, a lot of right wing arguments are bunk here, and should be called out and corrected. We really need more education on the matter, not ignorance and xenophobia.
However, this isn't to say there aren't concerns. I've had the far left political correctness police get huffy at the concept of making English the language of the United States. I mean, let me get this straight, we're getting to the point where we're forcing people to take Spanish in school and college, but we think it's incorrect to make immigrants learn English? What's wrong with this picture? The fact is the far left tries to accommodate diverse groups of people while alienating the mainstream, and it's ridiculous. I don't think it's a lot to ask for immigrants to obey our laws, don't demand changes to our customs (more of a problem in Europe), and learn our language and adapt enough to functionally be a member of our society. Not necessarily give up their ethnic identity wholesale, I do believe the melting pot stuff to an extent, but at least conform to the extent that they are able to function in our society without demanding the locals conform to them. I think that's a huge thing that pisses a lot of people off. Immigrants are guests in our country, we shouldn't have a lift a finger to conform to them. We shouldn't have to learn their language or be sensitive to their culture, they should conform to ours, they joined OUR society, not the other way around. I don't think that's a lot to ask.
And as far as Europe goes, they might have a bigger problem over there. Muslims coming from the Middle East and Africa seem particularly unwilling to conform due to their religion, and are also making some demands of locals that the locals get offended at the very idea of. Like getting rid of octoberfest or having halal foods (which is barbaric) or expecting locals to fast in their presence during Ramadan or asking locals not to walk their dogs in their neighborhood. When you go into a country and start telling the locals what they should be doing to accommodate you, they're going to be right in telling you to screw off and go back to where you came from. And when the left tells you that you're racist or sexist or intolerant or privileged, once again, you're going to make enemies out of potential allies and possibly radicalize those people in response. Which is what the alt right is, the radicalization of right wing ideas in the face of being ignored or even bullied for thinking the way they do.
Bringing it all together/Conclusion
Look, the left has a lot to offer our politics here. And they're right on a lot of things. I think political correctness is generally a good thing. I think feminism is generally a good thing. I think anti racism is generally a good thing. I think immigration is largely benign, especially in the United States. I do want to emphasize this. I actually do identify closer to the left than the right here.
However, a particularly toxic, even "weaponized" strain of these politics is going around poisoning our dialogue and creating a radical right wing pushback known as the alt right. When you have these weaponized politics put out there to bully, shame, and silence dissent among people, you're eventually going to create a movement of people who've had enough who will be relatively radical themselves and push back against these things. When you have a platform that appeals to everyone but whites, males, and the middle class, don't be surprised when you lose these folks. When you insist natives to a society have to conform to the ways of immigrants, don't be surprised when you lose those folks.
Look, I want a strong left. I want an inclusive left. I do believe the concerns of marginalized groups is important, but you need to tie up all of these groups behind a common cause, and you need to bring the white working and middle class into the fold. Not by shaming them, but by incentivizing them. As long as we're divided by identity politics, as long as we balkanize ourselves into these different groups, and push these politics of division, we will never be united toward a common goal. I would like to see more people recognize that many of these problems have a common thread in them, and something we all need to come together to deal with. They mostly stem from the inadequacies of the status quo and our love affair with neoliberal capitalism. And we need to see things more in class terms. Despite our differences, I believe Africans Americans living in poor inner city areas and whites living in rural areas have a lot in common. They both suffer hardships and are on the wrong end of a screwed up economic system that doesn't give a crap about them. Instead of pitting these groups against one another, we should be uniting them for a common cause that is mutually beneficial.
Then again, maybe that's exactly why our politics looks like it does. Maybe both sides like to play dog whistle politics and keep people disunited and fighting amongst themselves. Because while we do that, the rich continue taking advantage of us and laugh all the way to the bank. Our politicians, despite being at odds with one another politically, end up being bought by the same corporations and special interests and are actually good buddies behind the scenes. Our political discourse becomes mere theater while the puppet masters are on the same side and enjoy us fighting amongst ourselves. So maybe this is intentional and by design. Who knows. All I know is if we ever want to actually make the world better, we need to focus on our real problems that we all have in common rather than fighting amongst ourselves over identity politics and scraps.
Monday, August 15, 2016
But but....parties are private organizations!
I know I'm beating a dead horse given the primary is over and most have moved onto the general election, but an argument I see raised from time to time is basically the idea that parties like the democrats are private organizations and can do whatever they want. This is a horrible argument that, following it through, subverts our democratic process and leaves us with an oligarchy with a choice between two privately selected candidates, neither of which necessarily serve the interests of the people.
Yes, parties are private organizations, but should they be? Well, let's look a bit how our electoral process works. We have a first past the post system in which there will, inevitably be only two viable options to run for president. In our system, these are republicans and democrats. Come general election time, the same people making these arguments will tell people that third parties can't win, that we have to choose between these two options, and if we don't, we'll enable the choice we don't want to win.
If we allow private parties to do what they want, rig primaries, or as some have argued, be grateful for the very idea that they care somewhat what we peons think as they're under no obligation to have them and have not had them in the past, what is our political system? It's a system in which private organizations have complete control over our political system and choose our candidates and the spectrum of debate allowed in society before we can choose who we want. That's not true democracy, that's not true freedom, that's a farce. That's a joke. That's a fake choice we are afforded to give us the illusion we have real choice in our political system, without actually having it.
In a thoeretical world in which anyone can have a party and anyone can run for president, in practice be equally likely to get it, and that system that isn't first past the post, maybe an argument can be made here. Just like it's arguable that a "true" free market (nearly infinite buyers and sellers) requires less regulation than a monopoly or duopoly. But if we want to compare our system to a market situation, it's closer to something like your utilities or an ISP or something. Something that is necessary for modern society to function, but left to their own devices and relative lack of competition, will exploit their power.
As such, if we're going to have a political system based in the real world, especially ours with our current approaches to electing people, parties should not be regarded as private entities that can do what they want, take it or leave it. They require regulation. They should have to act in certain ways to share power with the people and ensure that ultimately, the process nominating candidates and choosing who wins ultimately serves the peoples' interests.
If you think parties are private organizations and can do what they want, you are supporting oligarchy. You don't believe in freedom, you don't believe in real democracy, you believe in oligarchs sanctioning the two viable options we can vote for a given elected office, and actual voter choice and preference being an afterthought. You believe in a small, elite group of people choosing your candidates before you can choose them, and them limiting your choices and the spectrum of debate we are allowed to have in this country. We either need way more parties, or the parties need to be held to strict regulation as if their nominating processes were PUBLIC elections themselves. Ideally, we should have both.
Yes, parties are private organizations, but should they be? Well, let's look a bit how our electoral process works. We have a first past the post system in which there will, inevitably be only two viable options to run for president. In our system, these are republicans and democrats. Come general election time, the same people making these arguments will tell people that third parties can't win, that we have to choose between these two options, and if we don't, we'll enable the choice we don't want to win.
If we allow private parties to do what they want, rig primaries, or as some have argued, be grateful for the very idea that they care somewhat what we peons think as they're under no obligation to have them and have not had them in the past, what is our political system? It's a system in which private organizations have complete control over our political system and choose our candidates and the spectrum of debate allowed in society before we can choose who we want. That's not true democracy, that's not true freedom, that's a farce. That's a joke. That's a fake choice we are afforded to give us the illusion we have real choice in our political system, without actually having it.
In a thoeretical world in which anyone can have a party and anyone can run for president, in practice be equally likely to get it, and that system that isn't first past the post, maybe an argument can be made here. Just like it's arguable that a "true" free market (nearly infinite buyers and sellers) requires less regulation than a monopoly or duopoly. But if we want to compare our system to a market situation, it's closer to something like your utilities or an ISP or something. Something that is necessary for modern society to function, but left to their own devices and relative lack of competition, will exploit their power.
As such, if we're going to have a political system based in the real world, especially ours with our current approaches to electing people, parties should not be regarded as private entities that can do what they want, take it or leave it. They require regulation. They should have to act in certain ways to share power with the people and ensure that ultimately, the process nominating candidates and choosing who wins ultimately serves the peoples' interests.
If you think parties are private organizations and can do what they want, you are supporting oligarchy. You don't believe in freedom, you don't believe in real democracy, you believe in oligarchs sanctioning the two viable options we can vote for a given elected office, and actual voter choice and preference being an afterthought. You believe in a small, elite group of people choosing your candidates before you can choose them, and them limiting your choices and the spectrum of debate we are allowed to have in this country. We either need way more parties, or the parties need to be held to strict regulation as if their nominating processes were PUBLIC elections themselves. Ideally, we should have both.
Saturday, August 13, 2016
No, Trump, the election is not rigged if you lose Pennsylvania
Trump is trying to play on the dissatisfaction with the democratic primary by claiming that Clinton is going to rig the general election. This makes no sense and is just baseless fear mongering. He's down 9.2% in the polls, and a republican hasn't won Pennsylvania since 1988. No, Trump, the polls aren't rigged, you're just a loser.
The reason we can say there was questionable stuff in the primary is because the democrats had it out for Sanders. Here, the democrats may have it out for Trump, but the GOP has it out for Clinton, and both parties have influence in the media and debate schedules, etc. Moreover, a big suspicion of cheating electorally comes from weird discrepancies in polling data versus the actual result, which were well outside of the margin of error. I don't doubt that the democrats could try something here too, but they really don't need to rig the election to win here. Trump is down enough where if Trump won Pennsylvania I would wonder if it were rigged, that's how badly he's doing.
Look, you can't just blame losing an election on rigging without evidence or even a valid reasonable suspicion. Especially when you're expected to lose badly. It doesn't work that way. You're going to lose Pennsylvania because you're a crappy candidate, Clinton doesn't need to rig PA to win here. Dems have won here for decades in presidential elections, and the polls are on their side.
The reason we can say there was questionable stuff in the primary is because the democrats had it out for Sanders. Here, the democrats may have it out for Trump, but the GOP has it out for Clinton, and both parties have influence in the media and debate schedules, etc. Moreover, a big suspicion of cheating electorally comes from weird discrepancies in polling data versus the actual result, which were well outside of the margin of error. I don't doubt that the democrats could try something here too, but they really don't need to rig the election to win here. Trump is down enough where if Trump won Pennsylvania I would wonder if it were rigged, that's how badly he's doing.
Look, you can't just blame losing an election on rigging without evidence or even a valid reasonable suspicion. Especially when you're expected to lose badly. It doesn't work that way. You're going to lose Pennsylvania because you're a crappy candidate, Clinton doesn't need to rig PA to win here. Dems have won here for decades in presidential elections, and the polls are on their side.
Friday, August 12, 2016
On 2016 election related conspiracy theories
There's been a huge propensity I've noticed among ex-Sanders supporters and others to engage in a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense since the democratic convention. I'm basically discussing this to say, STOP. You're making us all look bad.
Look, I know in light of Clinton being shady as heck, and the DNC doing questionable things to potentially rig the democratic primary that it's reasonable to be suspicious of Clinton, but honestly, people are jumping at every coincidence as a giant conspiracy on the part of the Clintons. There's all this talk of Clinton hiding some debilitating medical condition including medical records that many people who are talking about them are claiming are falsified, and all this talk that basically everyone who dies remotely close to the Clinton administration being murdered, etc. I mean, I know there are some facts that don't add up about the Seth Rich thing (no items missing despite attempted robbery, etc.), but ultimately, we have no serious evidence outside of Julian Assange's implications, which could easily be him trying to stir up a hornet's nest.
Look, if you're gonna accuse Clinton of this stuff seriously, at least do some research on the matter, look for evidence, engage in some level of critical thinking, and above all, CHECK SNOPES before spreading the stuff.
Most of these accusations being leveled at Clinton now are nothing like the accusations that the DNC was rigging the primary. I mean, that could be figured out just by having advanced knowledge of how propaganda and the media works. But stuff like murder and all? Yeah, no, if you believe that stuff on anything more than a level of merely entertaining the possibility, I advise you to rethink your position.
If the ex-Sanders movement retreats into a conspiracy theory filled echo chamber, what really separates us from the conservatives? That's the big problem with the right these days. They're too influenced by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and infowars and tend to eat up a ton of propaganda where they lose touch with reality. I fear that the same thing will happen to our movement if we let it, and if it does, we will lose our credibility and factual high ground, and ultimately lose the debate. So please, fellow ex-Berners, don't lose touch with reality, don't eat up tons of bullcrap, and think critically about crazy unproven claims about presidential candidates.
Look, I know in light of Clinton being shady as heck, and the DNC doing questionable things to potentially rig the democratic primary that it's reasonable to be suspicious of Clinton, but honestly, people are jumping at every coincidence as a giant conspiracy on the part of the Clintons. There's all this talk of Clinton hiding some debilitating medical condition including medical records that many people who are talking about them are claiming are falsified, and all this talk that basically everyone who dies remotely close to the Clinton administration being murdered, etc. I mean, I know there are some facts that don't add up about the Seth Rich thing (no items missing despite attempted robbery, etc.), but ultimately, we have no serious evidence outside of Julian Assange's implications, which could easily be him trying to stir up a hornet's nest.
Look, if you're gonna accuse Clinton of this stuff seriously, at least do some research on the matter, look for evidence, engage in some level of critical thinking, and above all, CHECK SNOPES before spreading the stuff.
Most of these accusations being leveled at Clinton now are nothing like the accusations that the DNC was rigging the primary. I mean, that could be figured out just by having advanced knowledge of how propaganda and the media works. But stuff like murder and all? Yeah, no, if you believe that stuff on anything more than a level of merely entertaining the possibility, I advise you to rethink your position.
If the ex-Sanders movement retreats into a conspiracy theory filled echo chamber, what really separates us from the conservatives? That's the big problem with the right these days. They're too influenced by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and infowars and tend to eat up a ton of propaganda where they lose touch with reality. I fear that the same thing will happen to our movement if we let it, and if it does, we will lose our credibility and factual high ground, and ultimately lose the debate. So please, fellow ex-Berners, don't lose touch with reality, don't eat up tons of bullcrap, and think critically about crazy unproven claims about presidential candidates.
Election update: 8/12/16
We've had a lot of polls come out in the last 3 days so I figured I would update everything. TL;DR, it's not looking good for Trump yet again.
Aggregate polling
Clinton - 47.5%, Trump - 41.2% (6.3% Clinton)
Trump came up a point on the whole, although as we'll see, this doesn't really pan out for the electoral college.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates
Clinton- 44.0%, Trump- 37.6%, Johnson- 8.3%, Stein- 3.0% (6.4% Clinton)
Trump came up a point here too.
Electoral College
I'll stick to the same selection of swing states last time. For reference, I'm not including Utah because despite the media harping about Trump losing there, he's still ahead by quite a few points on average. I'm almost considering removing Maine CD2 because Maine is ahead by 8.5 points for Clinton and the CD2 is decided by congressional districts, but I don't know enough about how the votes for Trump would be distributed across the state. They could all be concentrated in urban areas with most congressional districts being more red. As such, I will leave it to the polling data even if it is questionable.
Arizona - 0.3% Trump (no change)
Florida - 3.3% Clinton (up from 2.7%)
Georgia - 1.2% Clinton (down from 1.8%)
Iowa - 0.4% Clinton (down from 0.5%)
Nevada - 2.3% Clinton (no change)
North Carolina - 2.0% Clinton (up from 1.3%)
Ohio - 2.6% Clinton (up from 0.8%)
Maine CD2 - 1% Trump (no change)
Trump made some slight rebounds in a few states, but also lost a bit in a few others. All in all, I would say he lost ground though because of the increases seen in Florida and Ohio.
Election Scenarios
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<3% lead) - 301-164 Clinton
Most likely scenario with toss ups (<1% lead) - 356-164 Clinton
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 362-176 Clinton
All toss ups Clinton (Clinton + 1) - 374-164 Clinton
Clinton + 2 - 374-164 Clinton
Clinton + 3 - 374-164 Clinton
All toss ups Trump (Trump + 1) - 356-182 Clinton
Trump + 2 - 325-213 Clinton
Trump + 3 - 301-237 Clinton
Ouch, as we can see, Trump's gains in Iowa and Georgia made little difference, but losing ground in Ohio and Florida hurt him significantly.
Conclusion
We still have three months to go and people are still talking about post convention bounces, but all in all, Trump looks like he's getting worse and worse off, whereas Clinton is getting better and better off. I didn't even go into the states that aren't really considered swing any more. Clinton solidified leads there too in the last few days.
Aggregate polling
Clinton - 47.5%, Trump - 41.2% (6.3% Clinton)
Trump came up a point on the whole, although as we'll see, this doesn't really pan out for the electoral college.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates
Clinton- 44.0%, Trump- 37.6%, Johnson- 8.3%, Stein- 3.0% (6.4% Clinton)
Trump came up a point here too.
Electoral College
I'll stick to the same selection of swing states last time. For reference, I'm not including Utah because despite the media harping about Trump losing there, he's still ahead by quite a few points on average. I'm almost considering removing Maine CD2 because Maine is ahead by 8.5 points for Clinton and the CD2 is decided by congressional districts, but I don't know enough about how the votes for Trump would be distributed across the state. They could all be concentrated in urban areas with most congressional districts being more red. As such, I will leave it to the polling data even if it is questionable.
Arizona - 0.3% Trump (no change)
Florida - 3.3% Clinton (up from 2.7%)
Georgia - 1.2% Clinton (down from 1.8%)
Iowa - 0.4% Clinton (down from 0.5%)
Nevada - 2.3% Clinton (no change)
North Carolina - 2.0% Clinton (up from 1.3%)
Ohio - 2.6% Clinton (up from 0.8%)
Maine CD2 - 1% Trump (no change)
Trump made some slight rebounds in a few states, but also lost a bit in a few others. All in all, I would say he lost ground though because of the increases seen in Florida and Ohio.
Election Scenarios
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<3% lead) - 301-164 Clinton
Most likely scenario with toss ups (<1% lead) - 356-164 Clinton
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 362-176 Clinton
All toss ups Clinton (Clinton + 1) - 374-164 Clinton
Clinton + 2 - 374-164 Clinton
Clinton + 3 - 374-164 Clinton
All toss ups Trump (Trump + 1) - 356-182 Clinton
Trump + 2 - 325-213 Clinton
Trump + 3 - 301-237 Clinton
Ouch, as we can see, Trump's gains in Iowa and Georgia made little difference, but losing ground in Ohio and Florida hurt him significantly.
Conclusion
We still have three months to go and people are still talking about post convention bounces, but all in all, Trump looks like he's getting worse and worse off, whereas Clinton is getting better and better off. I didn't even go into the states that aren't really considered swing any more. Clinton solidified leads there too in the last few days.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Stop hating on Bernie Sanders already! Also, the difference between my views and literal socialism
So, I've been noticing the green community hating on Sanders more and more. Maybe part of it is because they're way to the left of Sanders and myself, and are literal socialists whereas I'm a more mixed economy capitalist, but some of these criticisms of Sanders are getting ridiculous. Today he bought a lake house in Vermont for like $600,000. The actual socialists are trying to crucify him for it, acting like he's a member of the bourgeoisie and that it's too much.
I'll be the first to say this country has problems with income and wealth distribution. I'll be the first to say that these are endemic to the capitalist system. But maybe this system has benefits, and maybe some level of inequality is a good thing. I don't necessarily think people should only have what they absolutely need. I do believe in higher standards of living, being able to acquire luxuries. My problem with the current system has to do with the coercive and exploitative power relationships this system causes. It's the fact that the poor are denied resources to coerce them to work. It's that people are deprived the basics they need while those who exploit them make millions on their backs. It's that people don't have a de facto choice to opt out of this system.
Assuming we can ensure everyone a decent standard of living no matter what for everyone in a society, assuming that we can free people from the coercive elements associated with capitalism, resource denial, and wage slavery, and assuming that work relationships are truly voluntary, I have no issues with people living some level of luxury. I even think it can be a good thing. We should strive for higher standards of living. It's not only good for our well being, but the motivation higher standards of living provide is what will continue to motivate people to work. I have no problem with carrots existing in our capitalist system for motivational purposes. I just want to remove the sticks.
Bernie Sanders also lives a much lower standard of living than most members of congress. He is known for walking to work, flying coach on airplanes, and just generally being fairly down to earth. He lives more like a member of the upper middle class than the elite. He has some money, which he uses for some luxuries, but he doesn't have the extravagant standard of living of other members of congress. He's not raking in hundreds of thousands giving speeches to Wall Street, or anything like that, and he's not buying homes in a way to deny them from others or exploit them for rent seeking purposes. So give him a break already.
Honestly, in my ideal system, there would still be somewhat significant levels of income inequality between the rich and the poor. My ideal system would look more like "what Americans think inequality looks like" vs "what it actually is" in this video. This is because my ideal solutions to income inequality don't involve socialism or things like maximum wages as much as they involve generous social programs like universal healthcare and basic income. I would not change the economic system from the ground up if I can help it, I would instead rely heavily on income/wealth redistribution in fair, relatively painless ways, which would help raise the poor up, and leave the rich still rich, but less rich than they otherwise would be. If a rich guy earning $10 million a year pays 50-60% in taxes, guess what, he's still going to have 4-5 million left over. And I'm okay with that. I'm not trying to totally undermine everything about our economic system in a way that reduces freedom and leaves people to the whims of the state to determine how much they should have in a maximal sense. I just want to ensure those at the bottom have enough to live comfortably on, and are freer than they are. Basic income would greatly reduce income inequality, but it would not eliminate it. As I said, it would make income inequality closer to our current perceptions of it, rather than the current realities.
In my ideal worldview, the poor would be much better off, and people like Bernie Sanders could still afford to buy lake homes. What these socialists want is the complete end of capitalism, and a system that would punish and seize the property of anyone who has too much. Their system would say, "this is the maximum anyone should have, you can't have more." This is too punitive, and would destroy a lot of freedom we Americans take for granted. There should, as long as labor is as necessary as it is, be significant amounts of differences in living standards to motivate people. And in transitioning to a potential post work society, we should be able to all live well. What these guys are for is exactly why socialism is so unwelcome and hated in the US. It would be freedom destroying, having a heavy handed authority determine the maximum anyone should have. We need to focus on raising the minimums, not limiting the maximums, even if the maximum goes down a little to raise the minimum. The difference here is that my lowering of the maximum is coincidental and would still leave the most well off very well off. I feel like I could justify such a thing on utilitarian philosophy. I cannot necessarily justify limiting the maximum in a firm way as a matter of principle.
That being said, I don't hate Sanders for buying a new home. You got screwed out of the primary. You at least deserve this. Enjoy it. And for everyone else, I hope I adequately explained my difference in views between myself and literal socialists. I don't hate the fact that others have more than me, especially if they work hard for it. I just want a society where the bottom is better off materially and freer to live their own lives the way the most well off among us currently take for granted.
I'll be the first to say this country has problems with income and wealth distribution. I'll be the first to say that these are endemic to the capitalist system. But maybe this system has benefits, and maybe some level of inequality is a good thing. I don't necessarily think people should only have what they absolutely need. I do believe in higher standards of living, being able to acquire luxuries. My problem with the current system has to do with the coercive and exploitative power relationships this system causes. It's the fact that the poor are denied resources to coerce them to work. It's that people are deprived the basics they need while those who exploit them make millions on their backs. It's that people don't have a de facto choice to opt out of this system.
Assuming we can ensure everyone a decent standard of living no matter what for everyone in a society, assuming that we can free people from the coercive elements associated with capitalism, resource denial, and wage slavery, and assuming that work relationships are truly voluntary, I have no issues with people living some level of luxury. I even think it can be a good thing. We should strive for higher standards of living. It's not only good for our well being, but the motivation higher standards of living provide is what will continue to motivate people to work. I have no problem with carrots existing in our capitalist system for motivational purposes. I just want to remove the sticks.
Bernie Sanders also lives a much lower standard of living than most members of congress. He is known for walking to work, flying coach on airplanes, and just generally being fairly down to earth. He lives more like a member of the upper middle class than the elite. He has some money, which he uses for some luxuries, but he doesn't have the extravagant standard of living of other members of congress. He's not raking in hundreds of thousands giving speeches to Wall Street, or anything like that, and he's not buying homes in a way to deny them from others or exploit them for rent seeking purposes. So give him a break already.
Honestly, in my ideal system, there would still be somewhat significant levels of income inequality between the rich and the poor. My ideal system would look more like "what Americans think inequality looks like" vs "what it actually is" in this video. This is because my ideal solutions to income inequality don't involve socialism or things like maximum wages as much as they involve generous social programs like universal healthcare and basic income. I would not change the economic system from the ground up if I can help it, I would instead rely heavily on income/wealth redistribution in fair, relatively painless ways, which would help raise the poor up, and leave the rich still rich, but less rich than they otherwise would be. If a rich guy earning $10 million a year pays 50-60% in taxes, guess what, he's still going to have 4-5 million left over. And I'm okay with that. I'm not trying to totally undermine everything about our economic system in a way that reduces freedom and leaves people to the whims of the state to determine how much they should have in a maximal sense. I just want to ensure those at the bottom have enough to live comfortably on, and are freer than they are. Basic income would greatly reduce income inequality, but it would not eliminate it. As I said, it would make income inequality closer to our current perceptions of it, rather than the current realities.
In my ideal worldview, the poor would be much better off, and people like Bernie Sanders could still afford to buy lake homes. What these socialists want is the complete end of capitalism, and a system that would punish and seize the property of anyone who has too much. Their system would say, "this is the maximum anyone should have, you can't have more." This is too punitive, and would destroy a lot of freedom we Americans take for granted. There should, as long as labor is as necessary as it is, be significant amounts of differences in living standards to motivate people. And in transitioning to a potential post work society, we should be able to all live well. What these guys are for is exactly why socialism is so unwelcome and hated in the US. It would be freedom destroying, having a heavy handed authority determine the maximum anyone should have. We need to focus on raising the minimums, not limiting the maximums, even if the maximum goes down a little to raise the minimum. The difference here is that my lowering of the maximum is coincidental and would still leave the most well off very well off. I feel like I could justify such a thing on utilitarian philosophy. I cannot necessarily justify limiting the maximum in a firm way as a matter of principle.
That being said, I don't hate Sanders for buying a new home. You got screwed out of the primary. You at least deserve this. Enjoy it. And for everyone else, I hope I adequately explained my difference in views between myself and literal socialists. I don't hate the fact that others have more than me, especially if they work hard for it. I just want a society where the bottom is better off materially and freer to live their own lives the way the most well off among us currently take for granted.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Why socialism won't fix our problems
I'm thinking more about the greens and their proposals here, and while admirable on a pure ideological level, I really have trouble seeing socialism as being the path to a better world in and of itself. Their other proposals would help, but as long as we have the horrible work culture we have in America, socialism will just amount to tyranny by majority. This isn't to say it wouldn't be helpful in its own ways, maybe, but it's not that useful on its own and socialism's value among the far left is very overrated.
Definitions
By "socialism", I'm referring not to the Soviet style of socialism, but the green style I discussed yesterday. The concept of decentralized worker coops and municipal governments running the means of production in a democratic way
The problem with capitalism that socialism is supposed to solve
Capitalism is hierarchical and dictatorial according to socialists. You work for a boss, the boss tells you what to do for large portions of your life, dictates your wages, and has a clear upper hand in the power relationship. You're either a boss, or a worker. An oppressor, or the oppressed. Bourgeoisie, or proletariat.
Socialism is supposed to remove that difference. When the means of production is democratically owned, the class distinctions disappear. You're both a worker and a boss. You can vote on your wages, your hours, major business decisions, etc. Everyone has a voice. This supposedly resolves the exploitative nature of the relationships that exist within capitalism, and replaces it with a more fair approach to the problem.
What the greens are trying to do is make a decentralized, democratic framework for our economy in which enterprises are responsible to their local communities and to their workers. This will ensure people have a voice in the system, rather than simply being told what to do.
The problems it doesn't solve
Don't get me wrong, this version of socialism is attractive and noble, and heck, it could even be a piece of the puzzle in helping combat neoliberalism and wealth becoming so concentrated it cannot be adequately governed, but socialism, in and of itself, isn't going to solve the problems with exploitation.
In America, we have a huge cultural problem with work. Call it a form of "crab mentality." We have a culture of misery, masochism, and self denial based on the protestant work ethic. Many Americans don't have what it takes to fix our economic problems even if things were decided democratically, because we seem to enjoy being miserable. We make martyrs out of ourselves. We complain about how tired we are and how miserable we are, and how little free time we have, and we tend to encourage this behavior in others. People who are tired and miserable and burned out tend to associate with others in similar situations and even engage in these little pissing contests of who has it worse, which I call the "misery olympics."
People who don't engage in these little social games are generally looked down on with contempt by others who do. It's like, "how DARE you be happy with your life? Can't you see how miserable I am? It's not fair, you're so happy and my life sucks so bad, you should be miserable like me!" It's actually a huge reason why the working class in America keeps voting against its greater interests. They are miserable with work, they see people not working, so they scream about how they need to get jobs and try to make welfare harder to get and stuff. They complain about how hard they work and only make $13 an hour, so who do those fast food workers think they are demanding $15? They criticize the childless and the childfree for not having kids while complaining about how they were up to 4 AM cleaning up baby puke every night. They look down on the idea that people sleep in on a Saturday morning when they had to get up at 6 AM. They go on about how responsible they are for working 60+ hours a week when the other guy only has 50. As long as a significant portion of the working class thinks this way, it doesn't matter if we are socialistic in an economic democracy kind of way, the majority will just vote to spread the misery around.
In America, being tired and miserable is a sign of being an adult. It is a cultural expectation among the people to be always going going going and to be doing doing doing, and to be stretching oneself so thin from responsibilities that they are constantly on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Anyone who doesn't do this is considered childish or "lazy." And lazy is one of the worst things to be called in American society. It implies that you have no societal value, that you're a waste of space and should just screw off and die already. We literally derive our societal value from work. One of the first things people ask in small talk is "so what do you do for a living?" We define ourselves by what we do, and by proxy, how miserable we make ourselves doing it.
I want to make a few cases in point for how socialism would work in America, since we do have limited examples. First of all, I won't cite it since it might give away more than I'm willing to about my location, but there's a small grocery store chain in my area that is advertised as "worker owned." I don't know the logistics of this, whether any decision making is democratic or whether it's just "owned" in the sense that some employees have a stock option, but I looked up what this grocery store pays. The average wage is $8.55 an hour. For such a "socialist" enterprise, it's surprising that it doesn't compete with Costco which pays like $12-15 an hour, or even another local grocery store in my area that pays $11.50. What?! Capitalist industries are paying more than socialist ones?! But I thought socialism would end worker exploitation?!
Another example. Some companies have been experimenting with unlimited vacation days lately. This sounds great, you can take as much vacation as you want! Only problem is crab mentality ruins it. Some people report that people who have worked at businesses longer resent new employees having the same vacation time as them, because they see it as a reward for working there so long. This is oddly reminiscent of why so many people oppose the minimum wage increase. Because, oh, they worked so hard and busted their butt and why should someone else just get the same treatment for free? Unlimited vacation also sounds like less of an entitlement than a limited number of days you are "owed" and people actually don't use it. This is once again because our "work ourselves to the bone" culture looks down on spending time away from work. They are afraid Linda from accounting will whine about how you took more days off than her and how you're not pulling your weight. They even wonder if they can afford to take so many days whether they're replaceable, and are in fear of losing their jobs if they take too many.
Socialism, in and of itself, does not fix the cultural problems with work in the United States, which I see as perhaps the biggest problem of American capitalism. Unless we are willing to stand up for ourselves, it doesn't matter who owns the means of production, the rich, or the workers, you will be oppressed and tyrannized no matter what. It's just a matter of tyranny by one, or by majority.
We need a new culture and bargaining power to enforce it
People in America hate the concept of "entitlement", but that's precisely what we need if we're going to ever have social justice in our economy. We need to be able to make demands, and then be able to enforce them. Call it a culture of entitlement. We need to be able to say, look, I worked 40 hours a week, or dare I say in a truly progressive culture, 30 hours a week, I put in my time, I'm going home. No overtime, no nothing. Just, I'm done. Bye. Or being able to say, look, I'm owed 5 weeks of vacation this year as per our national policy, I'm taking them. I'm owed them. I'm "entitled" to them.
Labor movements used to know what it meant to push for demands like that. They striked, they protested, they made demands, and they won. They got a weekend, they got a 40 hour work week. That didn't come out of nowhere, their "entitlement" made that happen.
We need regulations that enforce said demands, like Europe. Europe has a system in which people are owed so much vacation time, and they take them. many Europeans take a whole month off and go on "holiday". We're lucky to get 2 weeks and we're afraid to take our days as mentioned above because of the cultural pressure to work. See where our lack of "entitlement" gets us.
Above all, we need a basic income. While it would not only solve poverty, it would give people the ultimate insurance against power being used against them in the work place, because they can walk. They can say, "screw you guys, I'm going home", and be able to live at at least subsistence level. That's really the source of oppression in the work place. I don't care as much about who owns the means of production as much as I care about being coerced to work by "wage slavery."
I would rather have a capitalist system, with a less martyrific culture, better work life balance, unions, regulations, and the ability to say no, than socialism. I think that European style social democracy and their attitudes would work better than American style socialism given our current culture.
Socialism isn't necessarily bad if implemented the green way. It really depends on the details, but it's really pretty low on my list of ways to make our economy run better. It could solve the mobility of capital issue I've pointed out in previous posts by making money more anchored in the community and less able to move overseas to offshore tax havens and third world countries with sweat shops. But it's grossly overrated in solving our problems. A lot of socialists act like it's a silver bullet, and it's just not.
Conclusion
Green style socialism, while a noble ideal to remove exploitation in our culture, would not be anywhere near as effective as it sounds on the surface, it makes philosophical sense, but it ignores so much of the cultural aspects of the problem. As long as we have a work culture based on martyrdom and crab mentality, it doesn't matter who controls the means of production. Fellow workers can be just as cruel as bosses with their currently internalized values. We need to instead focus on shifting our culture to one of "entitlement" and pushing for means to enforce that concept of entitlement. We need unions, labor regulations, and basic income to say, this is how much we should be getting paid, this is how many hours we should work, this is how much vacation time I want, and if I don't get it I won't work here. It would be far better to have European style social democracy with European values than American socialism given our current American values. It would be better still to guarantee a basic income to ensure that people have the right and ability to say no at any time for any reason. Wage slavery is the real root cause of oppression in capitalism, and as long as that exists, the problems aren't really solved. They're just dressed up. Real power to fix our economy comes from the ability to say no, or at least making the relationship less exploitative via other means.
Definitions
By "socialism", I'm referring not to the Soviet style of socialism, but the green style I discussed yesterday. The concept of decentralized worker coops and municipal governments running the means of production in a democratic way
The problem with capitalism that socialism is supposed to solve
Capitalism is hierarchical and dictatorial according to socialists. You work for a boss, the boss tells you what to do for large portions of your life, dictates your wages, and has a clear upper hand in the power relationship. You're either a boss, or a worker. An oppressor, or the oppressed. Bourgeoisie, or proletariat.
Socialism is supposed to remove that difference. When the means of production is democratically owned, the class distinctions disappear. You're both a worker and a boss. You can vote on your wages, your hours, major business decisions, etc. Everyone has a voice. This supposedly resolves the exploitative nature of the relationships that exist within capitalism, and replaces it with a more fair approach to the problem.
What the greens are trying to do is make a decentralized, democratic framework for our economy in which enterprises are responsible to their local communities and to their workers. This will ensure people have a voice in the system, rather than simply being told what to do.
The problems it doesn't solve
Don't get me wrong, this version of socialism is attractive and noble, and heck, it could even be a piece of the puzzle in helping combat neoliberalism and wealth becoming so concentrated it cannot be adequately governed, but socialism, in and of itself, isn't going to solve the problems with exploitation.
In America, we have a huge cultural problem with work. Call it a form of "crab mentality." We have a culture of misery, masochism, and self denial based on the protestant work ethic. Many Americans don't have what it takes to fix our economic problems even if things were decided democratically, because we seem to enjoy being miserable. We make martyrs out of ourselves. We complain about how tired we are and how miserable we are, and how little free time we have, and we tend to encourage this behavior in others. People who are tired and miserable and burned out tend to associate with others in similar situations and even engage in these little pissing contests of who has it worse, which I call the "misery olympics."
People who don't engage in these little social games are generally looked down on with contempt by others who do. It's like, "how DARE you be happy with your life? Can't you see how miserable I am? It's not fair, you're so happy and my life sucks so bad, you should be miserable like me!" It's actually a huge reason why the working class in America keeps voting against its greater interests. They are miserable with work, they see people not working, so they scream about how they need to get jobs and try to make welfare harder to get and stuff. They complain about how hard they work and only make $13 an hour, so who do those fast food workers think they are demanding $15? They criticize the childless and the childfree for not having kids while complaining about how they were up to 4 AM cleaning up baby puke every night. They look down on the idea that people sleep in on a Saturday morning when they had to get up at 6 AM. They go on about how responsible they are for working 60+ hours a week when the other guy only has 50. As long as a significant portion of the working class thinks this way, it doesn't matter if we are socialistic in an economic democracy kind of way, the majority will just vote to spread the misery around.
In America, being tired and miserable is a sign of being an adult. It is a cultural expectation among the people to be always going going going and to be doing doing doing, and to be stretching oneself so thin from responsibilities that they are constantly on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Anyone who doesn't do this is considered childish or "lazy." And lazy is one of the worst things to be called in American society. It implies that you have no societal value, that you're a waste of space and should just screw off and die already. We literally derive our societal value from work. One of the first things people ask in small talk is "so what do you do for a living?" We define ourselves by what we do, and by proxy, how miserable we make ourselves doing it.
I want to make a few cases in point for how socialism would work in America, since we do have limited examples. First of all, I won't cite it since it might give away more than I'm willing to about my location, but there's a small grocery store chain in my area that is advertised as "worker owned." I don't know the logistics of this, whether any decision making is democratic or whether it's just "owned" in the sense that some employees have a stock option, but I looked up what this grocery store pays. The average wage is $8.55 an hour. For such a "socialist" enterprise, it's surprising that it doesn't compete with Costco which pays like $12-15 an hour, or even another local grocery store in my area that pays $11.50. What?! Capitalist industries are paying more than socialist ones?! But I thought socialism would end worker exploitation?!
Another example. Some companies have been experimenting with unlimited vacation days lately. This sounds great, you can take as much vacation as you want! Only problem is crab mentality ruins it. Some people report that people who have worked at businesses longer resent new employees having the same vacation time as them, because they see it as a reward for working there so long. This is oddly reminiscent of why so many people oppose the minimum wage increase. Because, oh, they worked so hard and busted their butt and why should someone else just get the same treatment for free? Unlimited vacation also sounds like less of an entitlement than a limited number of days you are "owed" and people actually don't use it. This is once again because our "work ourselves to the bone" culture looks down on spending time away from work. They are afraid Linda from accounting will whine about how you took more days off than her and how you're not pulling your weight. They even wonder if they can afford to take so many days whether they're replaceable, and are in fear of losing their jobs if they take too many.
Socialism, in and of itself, does not fix the cultural problems with work in the United States, which I see as perhaps the biggest problem of American capitalism. Unless we are willing to stand up for ourselves, it doesn't matter who owns the means of production, the rich, or the workers, you will be oppressed and tyrannized no matter what. It's just a matter of tyranny by one, or by majority.
We need a new culture and bargaining power to enforce it
People in America hate the concept of "entitlement", but that's precisely what we need if we're going to ever have social justice in our economy. We need to be able to make demands, and then be able to enforce them. Call it a culture of entitlement. We need to be able to say, look, I worked 40 hours a week, or dare I say in a truly progressive culture, 30 hours a week, I put in my time, I'm going home. No overtime, no nothing. Just, I'm done. Bye. Or being able to say, look, I'm owed 5 weeks of vacation this year as per our national policy, I'm taking them. I'm owed them. I'm "entitled" to them.
Labor movements used to know what it meant to push for demands like that. They striked, they protested, they made demands, and they won. They got a weekend, they got a 40 hour work week. That didn't come out of nowhere, their "entitlement" made that happen.
We need regulations that enforce said demands, like Europe. Europe has a system in which people are owed so much vacation time, and they take them. many Europeans take a whole month off and go on "holiday". We're lucky to get 2 weeks and we're afraid to take our days as mentioned above because of the cultural pressure to work. See where our lack of "entitlement" gets us.
Above all, we need a basic income. While it would not only solve poverty, it would give people the ultimate insurance against power being used against them in the work place, because they can walk. They can say, "screw you guys, I'm going home", and be able to live at at least subsistence level. That's really the source of oppression in the work place. I don't care as much about who owns the means of production as much as I care about being coerced to work by "wage slavery."
I would rather have a capitalist system, with a less martyrific culture, better work life balance, unions, regulations, and the ability to say no, than socialism. I think that European style social democracy and their attitudes would work better than American style socialism given our current culture.
Socialism isn't necessarily bad if implemented the green way. It really depends on the details, but it's really pretty low on my list of ways to make our economy run better. It could solve the mobility of capital issue I've pointed out in previous posts by making money more anchored in the community and less able to move overseas to offshore tax havens and third world countries with sweat shops. But it's grossly overrated in solving our problems. A lot of socialists act like it's a silver bullet, and it's just not.
Conclusion
Green style socialism, while a noble ideal to remove exploitation in our culture, would not be anywhere near as effective as it sounds on the surface, it makes philosophical sense, but it ignores so much of the cultural aspects of the problem. As long as we have a work culture based on martyrdom and crab mentality, it doesn't matter who controls the means of production. Fellow workers can be just as cruel as bosses with their currently internalized values. We need to instead focus on shifting our culture to one of "entitlement" and pushing for means to enforce that concept of entitlement. We need unions, labor regulations, and basic income to say, this is how much we should be getting paid, this is how many hours we should work, this is how much vacation time I want, and if I don't get it I won't work here. It would be far better to have European style social democracy with European values than American socialism given our current American values. It would be better still to guarantee a basic income to ensure that people have the right and ability to say no at any time for any reason. Wage slavery is the real root cause of oppression in capitalism, and as long as that exists, the problems aren't really solved. They're just dressed up. Real power to fix our economy comes from the ability to say no, or at least making the relationship less exploitative via other means.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
More on the green's platform and socialism
After reading more about the platform change online, someone suggested that the socialist language used in the platform was a form of libertarian socialism. While to the left of me, I generally see the world in a similar way in terms of the problems, with my criticism of coercion in the capitalist system, but I would say I'm ideally far more moderate than this in practice. Still, again, it seems like this is the "good" form of socialism, as opposed to the bad form. I would prefer to keep a capitalist system with a more social democratic approach and a basic income ideally, but this isn't really awful either.
Considering how my choice is between this and Clinton style centrism, I think holding the democratic party's feet to the fire for their suppression of the Sanders campaign on multiple levels and a rejection of his views is more important right now, and think that a socialist bend to the green party might actually put more pressure on the democrats to move in the right direction. Still, I do want to emphasize that this change is to the left of my own views, which are ultimately capitalist.
Considering how my choice is between this and Clinton style centrism, I think holding the democratic party's feet to the fire for their suppression of the Sanders campaign on multiple levels and a rejection of his views is more important right now, and think that a socialist bend to the green party might actually put more pressure on the democrats to move in the right direction. Still, I do want to emphasize that this change is to the left of my own views, which are ultimately capitalist.
Update on the green party's movement to "socialism"
So, apparently that amendment I talked about yesterday passed, and I finally got to take a good look at it. It's a bit to the left of my personal beliefs, but at the same time, it's not really bad. Here's the original language in the platform that exists now:
The new language this amendment is being replaced with is the following:
They are instead supporting things like public works projects (think FDR), local government control of business (think your local water authority), and basically worker coops. I get that impression since they seem to reject both capitalist enterprises, but also state owned enterprises too. Which is good, if worker coops are implemented, we should have the best aspects of the market system in place like competition and decentralization, while reducing worker exploitation. While there are potential efficiency concerns, I'm largely supportive of the idea of worker coops, and it's the one form of socialism I'm okay with. Basically, the issues with socialism generally are that centrally planned economies like Russia's or Venezuela's don't work, they lead to shortages, and they also stifle productivity and innovation and are very resistant to change, being run by bureaucrats. But since the greens are explicitly rejecting that form of socialism and pushing for a decentralized worker owned democratic model, their views sound a lot closer to market socialism to me, or in the worst case scenario, democratic socialism.
The only thing I don't like is the idea of these enterprises being "accountable to our communities". What is meant by this? Will local governments run them? Regulate them? What? There's not a lot of details on the logistics here, and the big problem with supporting any kind of socialism is the logistics that govern it. That's what really makes or breaks the concept, and why so many socialist states have been failures. I mean a lot of what is said here sounds good on paper, but I'm having trouble thinking through how this would actually work, and the details of implementation are important. Still, considering how the point of all of this is to decentralize power in the market and make it accountable to the people, I guess it won't matter. The greens seem to be intentionally vague and open ended here to imply a diversity of different management and leadership styles on the local level. And if one community or enterprise fails, much like in capitalism, others will step in to pick up the slack so we will never really see the abuses of the Soviet system. There will be plenty of competition to keep power from getting out of hand here, and that seems to be their ultimate goal.
That being said, the way it's presented, it sounds like a good idea on the surface at least and I have to say I'm for it tentatively unless I find a fatal flaw in the implementation here. As I said, I wanted to read the language of the amendment before deciding whether or not to stop supporting the greens, and with this language, I still largely support the concept and still plan on supporting Jill Stein. I would have preferred the old language better since I am ultimately pro capitalism, but I do think some light forms of socialism as presented here introduced to our capitalist dominated political system would produce good results, moving us toward social justice. At the very least, it's a good plank to use to pressure the democrats to do better, and after all, I don't expect the greens to ever win, I just want them to put pressure on the democrats to move left and be more compatible with my kind of politics. As such, I'm open minded to the ideas presented here.
Sustaining our quality of life, economic prosperity, environmental health, and long-term survival demands that we adopt new ways of doing business. We need to remake commerce to encourage diversity and variety, responding to the enormous complexity of global and local conditions. Big business is not about appropriateness and adaptability, but about power and market control. Greens support small business, responsible stakeholder capitalism, and broad and diverse forms of economic cooperation. We argue that economic diversity is more responsive than big business to the needs of diverse human populations.I actually largely like that platform and it is fairly close to my own beliefs. It talks about moving toward decentralized capitalism with small business, as opposed to big corporations, and responsible capitalism. While I think large business can occasionally do good things due to economies of scale, and think they can fund research efforts little guys simply cannot (think Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.), I do see a problem with big corporations dominating capitalism. It's a huge reason capital is so mobile, why people can afford to go overseas and avoid regulations and taxes. Forget too big to fail, a lot of corporations as they exist are too big to govern, and pose a threat to state sovereignty in my opinion, subjecting them to market forces.
The new language this amendment is being replaced with is the following:
The Green Party seeks to build an alternative economic system based on ecology and decentralization of power, an alternative that rejects both the capitalist system that maintains private ownership over almost all production as well as the state-socialist system that assumes control over industries without democratic, local decision making. We believe the old models of capitalism (private ownership of production) and state socialism (state ownership of production) are not ecologically sound, socially just, or democratic and that both contain built-in structures that advance injustices.So, let me break this down. The green party is essentially rejecting "capitalism" and private ownership of the means of production, but it also rejects Soviet style communism/socialism. So before right wingers get their torches and pitchforks out, the green party explicitly rejects what we generally know of to be "socialism" or "communism" in the United States. They're not doing the Soviet thing at all.
Instead we will build an economy based on large-scale green public works, municipalization, and workplace and community democracy. Some call this decentralized system ecological socialism, communalism, or the cooperative commonwealth, but whatever the terminology, we believe it will help end labor exploitation, environmental exploitation, and racial, gender, and wealth inequality and bring about economic and social justice due to the positive effects of democratic decision making.
Production is best for people and planet when democratically owned and operated by those who do the work and those most affected by production decisions. This model of worker and community empowerment will ensure that decisions that greatly affect our lives are made in the interests of our communities, not at the whim of centralized power structures of state administrators or of capitalist CEOs and distant boards of directors. Small, democratically run enterprises, when embedded in and accountable to our communities, will make more ecologically sound decisions in materials sourcing, waste disposal, recycling, reuse, and more. Democratic, diverse ownership of production would decentralize power in the workplace, which would in turn decentralize economic power more broadly.
They are instead supporting things like public works projects (think FDR), local government control of business (think your local water authority), and basically worker coops. I get that impression since they seem to reject both capitalist enterprises, but also state owned enterprises too. Which is good, if worker coops are implemented, we should have the best aspects of the market system in place like competition and decentralization, while reducing worker exploitation. While there are potential efficiency concerns, I'm largely supportive of the idea of worker coops, and it's the one form of socialism I'm okay with. Basically, the issues with socialism generally are that centrally planned economies like Russia's or Venezuela's don't work, they lead to shortages, and they also stifle productivity and innovation and are very resistant to change, being run by bureaucrats. But since the greens are explicitly rejecting that form of socialism and pushing for a decentralized worker owned democratic model, their views sound a lot closer to market socialism to me, or in the worst case scenario, democratic socialism.
The only thing I don't like is the idea of these enterprises being "accountable to our communities". What is meant by this? Will local governments run them? Regulate them? What? There's not a lot of details on the logistics here, and the big problem with supporting any kind of socialism is the logistics that govern it. That's what really makes or breaks the concept, and why so many socialist states have been failures. I mean a lot of what is said here sounds good on paper, but I'm having trouble thinking through how this would actually work, and the details of implementation are important. Still, considering how the point of all of this is to decentralize power in the market and make it accountable to the people, I guess it won't matter. The greens seem to be intentionally vague and open ended here to imply a diversity of different management and leadership styles on the local level. And if one community or enterprise fails, much like in capitalism, others will step in to pick up the slack so we will never really see the abuses of the Soviet system. There will be plenty of competition to keep power from getting out of hand here, and that seems to be their ultimate goal.
That being said, the way it's presented, it sounds like a good idea on the surface at least and I have to say I'm for it tentatively unless I find a fatal flaw in the implementation here. As I said, I wanted to read the language of the amendment before deciding whether or not to stop supporting the greens, and with this language, I still largely support the concept and still plan on supporting Jill Stein. I would have preferred the old language better since I am ultimately pro capitalism, but I do think some light forms of socialism as presented here introduced to our capitalist dominated political system would produce good results, moving us toward social justice. At the very least, it's a good plank to use to pressure the democrats to do better, and after all, I don't expect the greens to ever win, I just want them to put pressure on the democrats to move left and be more compatible with my kind of politics. As such, I'm open minded to the ideas presented here.
Election update: 8/9/16
I'm going to do my election update now. While Trump looks like he's gaining in a couple of the really close states, he's ultimately losing more electoral votes than he's gaining, and it looks very much like Clinton is surging further and further ahead. Let's look at the data.
Aggregate polling
Clinton - 47.6%, Trump - 40.1% (7.5% Clinton)
Clinton's lead has increased even more, going from 5.9% to 7.5%. This is looking worse and worse for Trump. For reference, the difference between Obama and Romney in 2012 was only about 3.9%. The difference between McCain and Obama in 2008 was about 7.2%, and we all know how much of a blow out that election was. That's how badly the republican party is self destructing right now. In the presidential race, they are literally doing as bad as they were after 8 years of the Bush administration, despite Clinton being far less popular than Obama all things considered, and the party arguably being less unified. That's how badly Trump is imploding the republican party. It's really sad.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates
Clinton- 43.8%, Trump- 36.3%, Johnson- 8.6%, Stein- 4.0% (7.5% Clinton)
The four way race gives similar results, and shows that third parties are "taking" from Trump and Clinton equally. I don't want to hear a word about "spoilers" here. It's not panning out in the data, despite third party support growing. Johnson is back over 8 points, and Stein is at 4. For reference, Stein's goal this election is to reach 5%, since this will give the green party more campaign funding. This will allow libertarians and greens to be more competitive in the future.
Electoral College
I'm changing a few things. RCP removed New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia from their swing state lists, and given how commanding Clinton is leading there (7%+), that is a good idea. They also give Oregon back to Clinton, and while the lead is still 4.5% by my calculations, only one poll actually gave it to Trump, and it's considered a heavy blue state, so I'm removing it. I'll also remove Kentucky and give it to Trump because the only reason it leaned Clinton is because a single poll gave it 3% in her favor and that's not very reliable. I'll put it back with more polling data, but no one else remotely considers it a swing state, and expects nothing to happen here. I'll also remove Missouri since it's over 6% in Trump's favor and I don't know why it was added in the first place. I'll remove Wisconsin and Michigan too since they're up by similar leads for Clinton. I'll also remove Mississippi and Texas since they're generally very strong red states and are only on my list due to poor polling. So I'm doing a lot of clean up here. All in all I only want to count states with under 3-4 point leads with reliable polling, or where experts seem to think that there's some real competition there. As for the data:
Arizona - 0.3% Trump (flipped from 0.5% Clinton)
Florida - 2.7% Clinton (no change)
Georgia - 1.8% Clinton (flipped from 4.0% Trump)
Iowa - 0.5% Clinton (no change)
Nevada - 2.3% Clinton (down from 2.5%)
North Carolina - 1.3% Clinton (down from 2.0%)
Ohio - 0.8% Clinton (no change)
Maine CD2 - 1% Trump (no change)
Election Scenarios
These new changes do make some differences in the electoral college level
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<3% lead) - 272-164 Clinton
Most likely scenario with toss ups (<1% lead) - 338-164 Clinton
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 362-176 Clinton
All toss ups Clinton (Clinton + 1) - 374-164 Clinton
Clinton + 2 - 374-164 Clinton
Clinton + 3 - 374-164 Clinton
All toss ups Trump (Trump + 1) - 338-200 Clinton
Trump + 2 - 307-231 Clinton
Trump + 3 - 272-266 Clinton
Since I cut back on swing states, I also cut back on my extended scenarios that would most likely not happen anyway. I only made those in order to come up with crazy ways in which Trump could actually win for demonstration purposes, since a Trump victory is really that unlikely.
All in all, even giving Kentucky back to Trump, he's still in the hole because he's losing Georgia. GEORGIA. When you're a republican and you start losing the deep south, you have serious issues. Either that or the democratic party's move to the right is paying off in some electoral college votes. This is not looking good for Trump at all. Even if Trump wins every swing state under 3 points as it is, he would still lose the election. And those other states he would need to win are getting deeper blue every day. Pennsylvania I think is up 8.5%? Virginia and New Hampshire are crazily high too. Oregon was unlikely to ever go for him to begin with. Realistically, he would need to make inroads in places like Wisconsin and Michigan to really win the election at this point. He would need to overcome 5, maybe even 6 point deficits just to have a CHANCE.
Conclusion
It's kind of superfluous given I'm just belaboring the point, but all in all, Trump's losing badly. Clinton's lead is seeing no signs of fading, even in the face of growing third party support. He's even starting to lose states in the deep south that almost never go democrat. Unless things dramatically change, Clinton is going to win this election. It's really a matter of by how much, and how the closer swing states will ultimately go.
Aggregate polling
Clinton - 47.6%, Trump - 40.1% (7.5% Clinton)
Clinton's lead has increased even more, going from 5.9% to 7.5%. This is looking worse and worse for Trump. For reference, the difference between Obama and Romney in 2012 was only about 3.9%. The difference between McCain and Obama in 2008 was about 7.2%, and we all know how much of a blow out that election was. That's how badly the republican party is self destructing right now. In the presidential race, they are literally doing as bad as they were after 8 years of the Bush administration, despite Clinton being far less popular than Obama all things considered, and the party arguably being less unified. That's how badly Trump is imploding the republican party. It's really sad.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates
Clinton- 43.8%, Trump- 36.3%, Johnson- 8.6%, Stein- 4.0% (7.5% Clinton)
The four way race gives similar results, and shows that third parties are "taking" from Trump and Clinton equally. I don't want to hear a word about "spoilers" here. It's not panning out in the data, despite third party support growing. Johnson is back over 8 points, and Stein is at 4. For reference, Stein's goal this election is to reach 5%, since this will give the green party more campaign funding. This will allow libertarians and greens to be more competitive in the future.
Electoral College
I'm changing a few things. RCP removed New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia from their swing state lists, and given how commanding Clinton is leading there (7%+), that is a good idea. They also give Oregon back to Clinton, and while the lead is still 4.5% by my calculations, only one poll actually gave it to Trump, and it's considered a heavy blue state, so I'm removing it. I'll also remove Kentucky and give it to Trump because the only reason it leaned Clinton is because a single poll gave it 3% in her favor and that's not very reliable. I'll put it back with more polling data, but no one else remotely considers it a swing state, and expects nothing to happen here. I'll also remove Missouri since it's over 6% in Trump's favor and I don't know why it was added in the first place. I'll remove Wisconsin and Michigan too since they're up by similar leads for Clinton. I'll also remove Mississippi and Texas since they're generally very strong red states and are only on my list due to poor polling. So I'm doing a lot of clean up here. All in all I only want to count states with under 3-4 point leads with reliable polling, or where experts seem to think that there's some real competition there. As for the data:
Arizona - 0.3% Trump (flipped from 0.5% Clinton)
Florida - 2.7% Clinton (no change)
Georgia - 1.8% Clinton (flipped from 4.0% Trump)
Iowa - 0.5% Clinton (no change)
Nevada - 2.3% Clinton (down from 2.5%)
North Carolina - 1.3% Clinton (down from 2.0%)
Ohio - 0.8% Clinton (no change)
Maine CD2 - 1% Trump (no change)
Election Scenarios
These new changes do make some differences in the electoral college level
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<3% lead) - 272-164 Clinton
Most likely scenario with toss ups (<1% lead) - 338-164 Clinton
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 362-176 Clinton
All toss ups Clinton (Clinton + 1) - 374-164 Clinton
Clinton + 2 - 374-164 Clinton
Clinton + 3 - 374-164 Clinton
All toss ups Trump (Trump + 1) - 338-200 Clinton
Trump + 2 - 307-231 Clinton
Trump + 3 - 272-266 Clinton
Since I cut back on swing states, I also cut back on my extended scenarios that would most likely not happen anyway. I only made those in order to come up with crazy ways in which Trump could actually win for demonstration purposes, since a Trump victory is really that unlikely.
All in all, even giving Kentucky back to Trump, he's still in the hole because he's losing Georgia. GEORGIA. When you're a republican and you start losing the deep south, you have serious issues. Either that or the democratic party's move to the right is paying off in some electoral college votes. This is not looking good for Trump at all. Even if Trump wins every swing state under 3 points as it is, he would still lose the election. And those other states he would need to win are getting deeper blue every day. Pennsylvania I think is up 8.5%? Virginia and New Hampshire are crazily high too. Oregon was unlikely to ever go for him to begin with. Realistically, he would need to make inroads in places like Wisconsin and Michigan to really win the election at this point. He would need to overcome 5, maybe even 6 point deficits just to have a CHANCE.
Conclusion
It's kind of superfluous given I'm just belaboring the point, but all in all, Trump's losing badly. Clinton's lead is seeing no signs of fading, even in the face of growing third party support. He's even starting to lose states in the deep south that almost never go democrat. Unless things dramatically change, Clinton is going to win this election. It's really a matter of by how much, and how the closer swing states will ultimately go.
Why I don't debate ancaps
So, I had an ancap try to debate me last night, and I tried to make it clear that I didn't want to, but they kept pushing their views anyway. It's actually kind of obnoxious and he really reminded me why I don't debate ancaps to begin with.
Long story short, most ancaps I've dealt with are EXTREMELY pushy, and come off as extremely brainwashed. I do want to point out this may not be all of them, but I've had enough encounters with them to have seen a pattern develop. Ancaps are so over their head in ideology that they literally cannot understand that not everyone thinks like them. To them, their worldview is so self evident, it's like water to a fish. They live in it, and are totally unaware that it really is a social construct. Even worse, trying to explain it to them will just lead to a long drawn out attempt by them to win me over with their logic. They start out with these supposed "self evident" axioms and just impose them on a debate whether we like them or not.
The problem is, their views are nowhere near as objective as they think they are. For example, one tried to argue that I accept the concept of self ownership as they define it just in debating with them, because by arguing with them I'm respecting their bodily autonomy or something? Um....no? I actually think the world is quite a darwinian hellhole in its natural state and that all morality is subjective. Moreover, I believe there are many different approaches to morality and that philosophy generally produces models. Just because I don't attack people at first sight doesn't mean I accept their moral axiom. I could be a Kantian practicing the categorical imperative. I could be a Christian loving my neighbor. I could be a social contractarian who believes by joining society that unsanctioned aggression is wrong. I could be a utilitarian who believes in the greatest good for the greatest number and thinks that aggression is not the way to get there. And quite frankly, while I lean utilitarian, I tend to respect some aspects of many models as valid and useful lenses to see the world. Ironically, even some aspects of anarcho capitalism, which I see as a form of extreme ethical egoism. I mean.....GAH! I really have trouble believing people are really this brainwashed to believe they have the ONE RIGHT moral philosophy and that everyone else is wrong, but they unfortunately are.
Debating these guys is almost like trying to debate a presuppositionalist like Sye Ten Bruggencate. They have their axioms and presuppositions, they're convinced they're right, they're convinced everyone who thinks differently is wrong, and they're aggressive in debating and spreading their ideas, even when informed that they are not welcome. And based on these axioms (some of which I discussed in a post a while back talking about their crazy beliefs), they have this well thought out, but ultimately horrifying system of right and wrong based on the logical conclusions of their beliefs.
I don't deny that they have A potentially valid model for society (or lack thereof) to be predicated on, but that's just it, it's A model. It's not THE model. They don't have a monopoly on truth. They think they do and they go into debates throwing out their system as self evident fact and insist you debate your own worldview on their terms, but they don't.
And that's why it's not worth debating them. They go into the argument assuming they're right, throwing out all of these claims, putting people who dare think differently on the defensive, insist they debate on their terms, and they will never ever stop. It's like an alligator that sinks its teeth into your leg and won't let go no matter how hard you struggle. And ultimately, where does the debate lead? You spend hours going back and forth with the guy, he thinks you're a monster because you don't believe in the nonaggression principle and believe in "forcing" him to do certain things as a member of society like pay taxes, and you think he's a monster because he believes child labor and wage slavery in general is a good thing as long as its voluntary. Heck, and I've mentioned this in my other post, but there are ancaps who believe freaking pedophilia is okay as long as the child "consents". These guys also don't recognize things like duress, manipulation, lack of other options, etc. They don't recognize that many relationships only appear voluntary on the surface but are actually quite coercive, and if you try to point it out to them they start railing about the government.
I mean, it's a total crap show. Take my advice, don't bother debating ancaps. It's a very long, frustrating experience that basically comes down an ideological fanatic trying to evangelize and impose their worldview on you. Nothing you will say to them will convince them, and nothing they say to you will convince you if you see the world different and don't buy into their BS. You'll just end him resenting them and them you hours later when you're done.
Long story short, most ancaps I've dealt with are EXTREMELY pushy, and come off as extremely brainwashed. I do want to point out this may not be all of them, but I've had enough encounters with them to have seen a pattern develop. Ancaps are so over their head in ideology that they literally cannot understand that not everyone thinks like them. To them, their worldview is so self evident, it's like water to a fish. They live in it, and are totally unaware that it really is a social construct. Even worse, trying to explain it to them will just lead to a long drawn out attempt by them to win me over with their logic. They start out with these supposed "self evident" axioms and just impose them on a debate whether we like them or not.
The problem is, their views are nowhere near as objective as they think they are. For example, one tried to argue that I accept the concept of self ownership as they define it just in debating with them, because by arguing with them I'm respecting their bodily autonomy or something? Um....no? I actually think the world is quite a darwinian hellhole in its natural state and that all morality is subjective. Moreover, I believe there are many different approaches to morality and that philosophy generally produces models. Just because I don't attack people at first sight doesn't mean I accept their moral axiom. I could be a Kantian practicing the categorical imperative. I could be a Christian loving my neighbor. I could be a social contractarian who believes by joining society that unsanctioned aggression is wrong. I could be a utilitarian who believes in the greatest good for the greatest number and thinks that aggression is not the way to get there. And quite frankly, while I lean utilitarian, I tend to respect some aspects of many models as valid and useful lenses to see the world. Ironically, even some aspects of anarcho capitalism, which I see as a form of extreme ethical egoism. I mean.....GAH! I really have trouble believing people are really this brainwashed to believe they have the ONE RIGHT moral philosophy and that everyone else is wrong, but they unfortunately are.
Debating these guys is almost like trying to debate a presuppositionalist like Sye Ten Bruggencate. They have their axioms and presuppositions, they're convinced they're right, they're convinced everyone who thinks differently is wrong, and they're aggressive in debating and spreading their ideas, even when informed that they are not welcome. And based on these axioms (some of which I discussed in a post a while back talking about their crazy beliefs), they have this well thought out, but ultimately horrifying system of right and wrong based on the logical conclusions of their beliefs.
I don't deny that they have A potentially valid model for society (or lack thereof) to be predicated on, but that's just it, it's A model. It's not THE model. They don't have a monopoly on truth. They think they do and they go into debates throwing out their system as self evident fact and insist you debate your own worldview on their terms, but they don't.
And that's why it's not worth debating them. They go into the argument assuming they're right, throwing out all of these claims, putting people who dare think differently on the defensive, insist they debate on their terms, and they will never ever stop. It's like an alligator that sinks its teeth into your leg and won't let go no matter how hard you struggle. And ultimately, where does the debate lead? You spend hours going back and forth with the guy, he thinks you're a monster because you don't believe in the nonaggression principle and believe in "forcing" him to do certain things as a member of society like pay taxes, and you think he's a monster because he believes child labor and wage slavery in general is a good thing as long as its voluntary. Heck, and I've mentioned this in my other post, but there are ancaps who believe freaking pedophilia is okay as long as the child "consents". These guys also don't recognize things like duress, manipulation, lack of other options, etc. They don't recognize that many relationships only appear voluntary on the surface but are actually quite coercive, and if you try to point it out to them they start railing about the government.
I mean, it's a total crap show. Take my advice, don't bother debating ancaps. It's a very long, frustrating experience that basically comes down an ideological fanatic trying to evangelize and impose their worldview on you. Nothing you will say to them will convince them, and nothing they say to you will convince you if you see the world different and don't buy into their BS. You'll just end him resenting them and them you hours later when you're done.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Addendum to the green party convention
I somehow missed it, but I read that the green party is possibly adding into their platform that they're going to support something called eco-socialism and a rejection of capitalism. That is definitely far too left for my tastes, but I will make a decision when they finally release the platform to the public and I can read it myself. I'm leery of "socialism", but I'm ultimately more interested in the details of implementation than a broad rejection of it, so if they tend to support mostly progressive politics labelled as "socialism" I still might bite. I mean, I'm mostly on board with their economic ideas as stated in Stein's personal platform, such as abolishment of student debt, free college, universal healthcare, basic income, job guarantee, etc.
Some discussion on the green party convention
I haven't discussed the green party convention since I didn't have a chance to watch it since I was away over the weekend, but I got to see a bunch of it last night and today on Youtube. All in all, my opinion of it was positive, more positive than the other three conventions. It wasn't perfect, but we're never going to see a perfect convention since I disagree with different factions on different issues.
The greens spent a lot of time focusing on the issues that the democrats don't want to talk about. They were openly critical of the democrats, and openly critical of their do nothing approaches to politics, fear mongering, and the fact that they expect people to vote for them but they never deliver. According to the greens, this is a long standing tactic going back to even the 1970s with their campaigns against Nixon (back when the party was fracturing). They've always held the left in contempt, they've always demanded they sit down and shut up, and they always demanded they fall in line. They were very welcome to Sanders supporters in coming to the party, which I liked. They also had a lot of different bylaws than the democrats do, like equal time for all speakers, a dedication to nonviolence as part of their platform, etc.
I also noticed that while the democrats are quick to play the privilege card, a major emphasis the greens have had this convention is for the rights of nonwhite people, ironically. The democrats try to paint the greens as "pasty white" privileged suburbanites and college bros, but there was a heavy focus on the rights of African Americans and their issues, native Americans, etc. They brought up a lot of stuff from America's past that we've done wrong....native American genocide, suppression of the rights of African Americans, etc.
As a matter of fact, I think they may have overdone it. I think that these guys came off as the stereotypical "America haters" you will see the republican party harp on the left about. They criticized genocide, oppression, they said stuff that if we were any other country we would be bombing ourselves, and even criticized our decision to nuke Japan at the end of World War II. It's like, everything the US does is wrong or something. Look, America has issues, and admitting we have a problem is the first step to fixing them, but I think they went a little over the top with it where it took too much of the focus. I do admit it was a refreshing change from the other conventions that went on about how great we are and reinforced the same old cultural values that deserve criticism, but still. It just took too much of the focus and will be seen by outsiders negatively. Maybe I'm just overreacting because I'm not used to seeing that much criticism of my country in one place though. Most of their criticisms weren't totally wrong, although I would disagree with them somewhat on foreign policy issues and the nuking of Japan in WWII. I just think that the world is a bit more nuanced and that our actions aren't so black and white. That applies both ways too...to those who want to whitewash our history, and those who want to act like we're an evil empire. The truth is somewhere in between.
Regardless, anyone who tries to claim that the green party supporters are privileged should seriously listen to them once in a while. They talk more about helping the underprivileged than even the democrats, and they focus on real problems and real solutions, not feel good symbolism.
As for the major speeches. Jill Stein's was good as far as Stein goes (I don't think she's a good speaker), but she was very open and inclusive toward people from many walks of life and did a pretty decent job making the case for the greens over the democrats.
Assange's speech was okay. It focused on his whistleblowing more than anything, but he did make jabs at the two party system as well, claiming Hillary was committing extortion against the democratic voters via her actions (I've made similar comparisons) and claiming that the difference between her and Trump is that between cholera and gonnorhea. That might go a bit far. I think one is worse than another. I think Trump is absolutely terrible while Clinton would only be half terrible. So I think it would be like, say, gonnorhea vs cancer. Both suck, but there is a distinct choice between them.
All in all though, while they were a bit too far left hippie-ish for my tastes, they're still preferable to the other parties I guess at this point. They are pretty much dead on about why the democrats aren't going to fix anything, the republicans are awful, libertarians are republicans without a lot of the religious nonsense. Greens seem like progressives who want to get crap done at least, and they've shown themselves to be the most viable party for my politics at this current point in time. I guess I'll support them. It would be good to see some of their worldview represented in politics considering how badly the two party system is failing us right now.
The greens spent a lot of time focusing on the issues that the democrats don't want to talk about. They were openly critical of the democrats, and openly critical of their do nothing approaches to politics, fear mongering, and the fact that they expect people to vote for them but they never deliver. According to the greens, this is a long standing tactic going back to even the 1970s with their campaigns against Nixon (back when the party was fracturing). They've always held the left in contempt, they've always demanded they sit down and shut up, and they always demanded they fall in line. They were very welcome to Sanders supporters in coming to the party, which I liked. They also had a lot of different bylaws than the democrats do, like equal time for all speakers, a dedication to nonviolence as part of their platform, etc.
I also noticed that while the democrats are quick to play the privilege card, a major emphasis the greens have had this convention is for the rights of nonwhite people, ironically. The democrats try to paint the greens as "pasty white" privileged suburbanites and college bros, but there was a heavy focus on the rights of African Americans and their issues, native Americans, etc. They brought up a lot of stuff from America's past that we've done wrong....native American genocide, suppression of the rights of African Americans, etc.
As a matter of fact, I think they may have overdone it. I think that these guys came off as the stereotypical "America haters" you will see the republican party harp on the left about. They criticized genocide, oppression, they said stuff that if we were any other country we would be bombing ourselves, and even criticized our decision to nuke Japan at the end of World War II. It's like, everything the US does is wrong or something. Look, America has issues, and admitting we have a problem is the first step to fixing them, but I think they went a little over the top with it where it took too much of the focus. I do admit it was a refreshing change from the other conventions that went on about how great we are and reinforced the same old cultural values that deserve criticism, but still. It just took too much of the focus and will be seen by outsiders negatively. Maybe I'm just overreacting because I'm not used to seeing that much criticism of my country in one place though. Most of their criticisms weren't totally wrong, although I would disagree with them somewhat on foreign policy issues and the nuking of Japan in WWII. I just think that the world is a bit more nuanced and that our actions aren't so black and white. That applies both ways too...to those who want to whitewash our history, and those who want to act like we're an evil empire. The truth is somewhere in between.
Regardless, anyone who tries to claim that the green party supporters are privileged should seriously listen to them once in a while. They talk more about helping the underprivileged than even the democrats, and they focus on real problems and real solutions, not feel good symbolism.
As for the major speeches. Jill Stein's was good as far as Stein goes (I don't think she's a good speaker), but she was very open and inclusive toward people from many walks of life and did a pretty decent job making the case for the greens over the democrats.
Assange's speech was okay. It focused on his whistleblowing more than anything, but he did make jabs at the two party system as well, claiming Hillary was committing extortion against the democratic voters via her actions (I've made similar comparisons) and claiming that the difference between her and Trump is that between cholera and gonnorhea. That might go a bit far. I think one is worse than another. I think Trump is absolutely terrible while Clinton would only be half terrible. So I think it would be like, say, gonnorhea vs cancer. Both suck, but there is a distinct choice between them.
All in all though, while they were a bit too far left hippie-ish for my tastes, they're still preferable to the other parties I guess at this point. They are pretty much dead on about why the democrats aren't going to fix anything, the republicans are awful, libertarians are republicans without a lot of the religious nonsense. Greens seem like progressives who want to get crap done at least, and they've shown themselves to be the most viable party for my politics at this current point in time. I guess I'll support them. It would be good to see some of their worldview represented in politics considering how badly the two party system is failing us right now.
Addendum to my post on the democrats going McCarthyist
These guys explained it far better than I ever could, so I figured I would share the article here since I talked about it.
The democrats are going full on McCarthyist this election
I've been hearing it more and more. Donald Trump is in league with the Russians. The DNC leaks were released by the Russians to influence our politics. Jill Stein is working with the Russians. Russians! Russians! Russians! The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! Dear God, vote for Hillary Clinton or you'll be raising the Russian flag and singing the Russians national anthem in 2017!
I might exaggerate a bit with the last one, but I've noticed recently it's their go to excuse for everything. Look, I don't deny the Russians would likely benefit from a Trump presidency than a Clinton one, with Trump talking about not honoring NATO obligations and all, but other than that, there's way too much focus on this.
The democrats are, once again, trying to bully people into voting for them via fear and intimidation. Throw aside your petty concerns, the Russians are coming, and if you don't vote for me, you're a dirty unpatriotic communist! Except Russians aren't communist any more so they're just attacking you as potentially being in league with the Russians. This is dangerous thinking. It's black and white, with us or against us mentality, where the democrats are the only righteous party, and anyone who votes for their main competition, the GOP on the right, the greens to their left, is unpatriotic.
It's McCarthyism brought into the 21st century, plain and simple. They're trying to work people up and scare them over the idea of the Russians influencing elections for their personal gain....all while influencing our elections for their personal gain in egregious ways.
I don't like Trump, or even Stein's geopolitics overseas. I mean, I'm not as hawkish as the Clintons, but I'm no isolationist peacenik either, and I do think we should honor our international agreements with defending allied nations. I take the middle ground, but ultimately rank foreign policy as low on my list of concerns because the way I see it, we are the most powerful, secure nation on earth, all things considered, and our power and presence is so overwhelming we outgun the Russians many times over. Even if we cut our military in half like Stein suggests, which I think would be a big mistake, we would still outgun the Russians. Their military is nowhere near as formidable as it used to be, it's aging, and if Putin invaded Europe in their current state they would still struggle just to take on the UK, France, and Germany.
It's not the cold war any more. While Putin is a very power hungry person, and has a lot of interest in expanding his sphere of influence, he really has limited abilities to do so. Russia is much smaller than it used to be, their military is much weaker, and they're less of a threat.
Not to mention there are a lot more issues this election than this single foreign policy issue. While I do think Clinton has the best foreign policy toward Russia.....it's not really on my list of big concerns for why I'm voting. I care a lot more about domestic policy, including economics and social policy. And I do have issues with Clinton's foreign policy in other areas and see her as too hawkish and interventionist in places like the middle east.
So...don't buy into these fear tactics. The Clinton campaign is really trying to go full stop in intimidating people into supporting her. And quite frankly, I think it's disgusting. These particular attacks are bordering on McCarthyism, if they're not full on McCarthyism. It's disgusting when political campaigns literally start accusing allies of being in league with foreign rival powers without evidence. Maybe they can make the case with the DNC leaks, but when they keep pushing this with Trump and now Stein, it's pretty disgusting.
I might exaggerate a bit with the last one, but I've noticed recently it's their go to excuse for everything. Look, I don't deny the Russians would likely benefit from a Trump presidency than a Clinton one, with Trump talking about not honoring NATO obligations and all, but other than that, there's way too much focus on this.
The democrats are, once again, trying to bully people into voting for them via fear and intimidation. Throw aside your petty concerns, the Russians are coming, and if you don't vote for me, you're a dirty unpatriotic communist! Except Russians aren't communist any more so they're just attacking you as potentially being in league with the Russians. This is dangerous thinking. It's black and white, with us or against us mentality, where the democrats are the only righteous party, and anyone who votes for their main competition, the GOP on the right, the greens to their left, is unpatriotic.
It's McCarthyism brought into the 21st century, plain and simple. They're trying to work people up and scare them over the idea of the Russians influencing elections for their personal gain....all while influencing our elections for their personal gain in egregious ways.
I don't like Trump, or even Stein's geopolitics overseas. I mean, I'm not as hawkish as the Clintons, but I'm no isolationist peacenik either, and I do think we should honor our international agreements with defending allied nations. I take the middle ground, but ultimately rank foreign policy as low on my list of concerns because the way I see it, we are the most powerful, secure nation on earth, all things considered, and our power and presence is so overwhelming we outgun the Russians many times over. Even if we cut our military in half like Stein suggests, which I think would be a big mistake, we would still outgun the Russians. Their military is nowhere near as formidable as it used to be, it's aging, and if Putin invaded Europe in their current state they would still struggle just to take on the UK, France, and Germany.
It's not the cold war any more. While Putin is a very power hungry person, and has a lot of interest in expanding his sphere of influence, he really has limited abilities to do so. Russia is much smaller than it used to be, their military is much weaker, and they're less of a threat.
Not to mention there are a lot more issues this election than this single foreign policy issue. While I do think Clinton has the best foreign policy toward Russia.....it's not really on my list of big concerns for why I'm voting. I care a lot more about domestic policy, including economics and social policy. And I do have issues with Clinton's foreign policy in other areas and see her as too hawkish and interventionist in places like the middle east.
So...don't buy into these fear tactics. The Clinton campaign is really trying to go full stop in intimidating people into supporting her. And quite frankly, I think it's disgusting. These particular attacks are bordering on McCarthyism, if they're not full on McCarthyism. It's disgusting when political campaigns literally start accusing allies of being in league with foreign rival powers without evidence. Maybe they can make the case with the DNC leaks, but when they keep pushing this with Trump and now Stein, it's pretty disgusting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)