We've seen it for almost 2 years now. "There's so much at stake!", "vote blue no matter who!", "we can't allow Trump to become president!", "the reality is you live in a two party system and Clinton is better than Trump!" And, as you know, I'm sick and tired of this crap. I support third parties. I am unapologetic about this. While I don't like everything about third party candidates either, I will happily support them given the alternatives.
Here's the thing, voting third party is about sending a message. It's about saying, "hey, major parties, you need to shape up and I refuse to support you any more." If done in great enough numbers, where it threatens electoral victories, it can be a powerful tool in forcing the parties to reconsider their priorities and accommodate disaffected voting blocks.
Voting for Clinton in the current circumstances if you don't like her, is, quite frankly, like being a battered spouse who goes back to their abuser because they are desperate. That's the best way to put it. You know she's bad for you, you know she treats you like crap, and you know that this will not get better, but you go back to her anyway because if you don't you'll be left out in the cold. And you know what? The abuser knows this, the abuser counts on this. They know you'll be back. They know you can't survive without them. They know they can treat you like crap and get away with it. They're counting on this. Hillary, going into this election, counted on the fact that she can use you and abuse you and treat you like crap, and you'll be back because Trump. Going back just validates this abusive mindset, and keeps us stuck in the tyranny of this two party system.
Look, I know the prospect of Trump for president is scary. And quite frankly, I think Clinton would be better outcome for the next four years. My ideal election situation is Clinton winning very narrowly (say, 2000 levels narrowly) with a very significant 3rd party support on both sides. However, if we want to break away from this abusive relationship, we need to be prepared to vote against Hillary and support a candidate like Stein, or even Johnson if you're a right winger, someone who is relatively honest and nonabusive toward their constituents, even if it means throwing an election or two. In the short term, yes, the results may be a disaster, we might end up with a candidate we really dont like in office. However, think of it like ripping a band aid off all at once. We need stick to our guns and rip that band aid off in one fall swoop so that we can begin the healing process more easily. By supporting Clinton, we're ripping it off one hair at a time, which is less painful short term, but more so long term.
What message will we send Clinton if we support her? That she can treat us like crap and we'll still vote for her, that's what. And while people talk about pressuring her after she gets in office, how? She got there with our help, she doesn't need us further except to win reelection. We have little power to leverage and threaten us, especially considering how, in 2020, the republican candidate isn't going to be much better. Cruz vs. Clinton, 2020, calling it now. Or maybe Rubio or Ryan vs Clinton. Will that be any better than Trump? Not really. While the republicans will be less unhinged, they'll still be scary. And people will once again be faced with a choice of big scary republican or Clinton. They really are gonna pull this game on us every 4 years unless we tell them to stop, and we tell them to stop by refusing to play. It might be painful, but that pain is coming anyway. Clinton isn't great and the republicans will eventually win again. The democrats can't hold out forever. They will lose one of these days, because they don't have a vision to win over peoples' hearts and minds and make more permanent victories possible. Once again, we might as well just pull the band aid off. It sends a stronger message and tells them that they need to change.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
I'm fed up with this election
I haven't been posting much about the election other than my updates on the state of the polls, in part because of lack of motivation to broach any deep topics, and in part because I've just run out of things to say. I might come out with a couple posts before the election happens to remind people why I am voting the way I'm doing so, but honestly, I'm just fed up with the state of politics in the US.
It's hard to make me so darned unmotivated. I normally live for election years. I'm normally, at least semi enthusiastically pushing one candidate over another. Even if I don't like the candidate I'm voting for, I'll normally enthusiastically support them over the other.
Not this time. The republicans are awful, but honestly, this election has made me lose faith in the democratic party too. I went into this election fired up and ready to go. I wanted to push for candidates and policies that brought America forward, that made our lives better, that represented real progress. We have serious issues, and going into it, I believed we needed a new FDR to address them. Before FDR, we were more or less a gilded age society. The market reigned supreme, and people had to sink or float in a darwinistic market system. That toppled over during the great depression, as unemployment reached 25%. While the great recession hasn't been as bad due to our learning from the past (it very well could have been that bad if not for actions taken by the Bush and Obama administrations), we have a lot to go. I personally feel like I face no prospects of the future, and am one of the "basement dwellers" Hillary Clinton was speaking of. The thing is though, we can't just fix this by doing more of the same. Combining my education with my observations of society, and talking with others in a similar boat, it seems clear that we have some very serious structural problems going on. And we need a NEW FDR to fix it.
Bernie Sanders represented that FDR. He didn't advocate for everything I liked, but he at least would've gotten the ball rolling. He spoke my language, understood what the problem was, proposed solutions to the problem. While a Sanders presidency wouldn't get us all there, it would've been a monumental step in the right direction, perhaps ushering in a new way of thinking that could have changed the culture of washington for the next few decades.
Not there was a problem, and that problem was Hillary Clinton. She wanted what she thought was hers, and that is the presidency. She conceded to Obama in 2008, and now she comes back feeling entitled to the position, and the democratic party backs her. So they suppress Sanders insurgent candidacy, crush our hopes and dreams, and tell us we better support her or else.
Clinton has hit all the wrong notes this election. She couldn't have alienated me more if she tried. She's out of touch, she doesn't care, she's in it for herself, she is pushing more of the same, and most importantly, I don't think she gives a crap what we think. The democratic party doesn't give a crap what we think. They're just as bad as the freaking republicans at this point. They've become republicans more or less. And watching debates, not just on the presidential level, but the senate level, I feel like I'm watching a debate between fake conservatives and real conservatives. There's no liberalism there, and what is there is dressed up and spun in an apologetic fashion to appeal to conservatives.
We don't have a real left wing party in America, we have two right wing parties that give different flavors of corporate desired policies. One is a bad cop who outright wants to screw you over, and one is a good cop, who claims to be on your side but isn't. And that's the truth about the democrats under Hillary. She's just as bad as the republicans, she just dresses it up better.Both candidates are hated. Trump is the most hated in the history of polling, and Clinton isn't far behind. Both have favorability numbers comparable to the likes of Goldwater and McGovern.Going beyond Clinton, Trump is so dumb I almost never bring him up on here because there's nothing worth bringing up. He's an orange buffoon who talks like he knows everything, while knowing nothing. He's a total noncandidate to me. He's not even worth discussing.
I'm just fed up. This election sucks, I just want it to be over, or at the very least I want a do over without these two people running. This is the crappiest, most disgraceful election I've ever had the displeasure of seeing. Neither candidate is likeable, neither will do what needs to be done, and oh gosh, the dirtiness, if you wonder why it's gotten this bad, it's not because these were our only options. It's because the Clinton campaign rigged their way to the top. The amount of sheer dirtiness, the harassment from Clinton trolls online, the rigging, both covert and overt, the media bias, it's like something out of a 1984-esque dystopian fantasy. It's just horrible. It's just horrible. I'm done discussing this topic.
It's hard to make me so darned unmotivated. I normally live for election years. I'm normally, at least semi enthusiastically pushing one candidate over another. Even if I don't like the candidate I'm voting for, I'll normally enthusiastically support them over the other.
Not this time. The republicans are awful, but honestly, this election has made me lose faith in the democratic party too. I went into this election fired up and ready to go. I wanted to push for candidates and policies that brought America forward, that made our lives better, that represented real progress. We have serious issues, and going into it, I believed we needed a new FDR to address them. Before FDR, we were more or less a gilded age society. The market reigned supreme, and people had to sink or float in a darwinistic market system. That toppled over during the great depression, as unemployment reached 25%. While the great recession hasn't been as bad due to our learning from the past (it very well could have been that bad if not for actions taken by the Bush and Obama administrations), we have a lot to go. I personally feel like I face no prospects of the future, and am one of the "basement dwellers" Hillary Clinton was speaking of. The thing is though, we can't just fix this by doing more of the same. Combining my education with my observations of society, and talking with others in a similar boat, it seems clear that we have some very serious structural problems going on. And we need a NEW FDR to fix it.
Bernie Sanders represented that FDR. He didn't advocate for everything I liked, but he at least would've gotten the ball rolling. He spoke my language, understood what the problem was, proposed solutions to the problem. While a Sanders presidency wouldn't get us all there, it would've been a monumental step in the right direction, perhaps ushering in a new way of thinking that could have changed the culture of washington for the next few decades.
Not there was a problem, and that problem was Hillary Clinton. She wanted what she thought was hers, and that is the presidency. She conceded to Obama in 2008, and now she comes back feeling entitled to the position, and the democratic party backs her. So they suppress Sanders insurgent candidacy, crush our hopes and dreams, and tell us we better support her or else.
Clinton has hit all the wrong notes this election. She couldn't have alienated me more if she tried. She's out of touch, she doesn't care, she's in it for herself, she is pushing more of the same, and most importantly, I don't think she gives a crap what we think. The democratic party doesn't give a crap what we think. They're just as bad as the freaking republicans at this point. They've become republicans more or less. And watching debates, not just on the presidential level, but the senate level, I feel like I'm watching a debate between fake conservatives and real conservatives. There's no liberalism there, and what is there is dressed up and spun in an apologetic fashion to appeal to conservatives.
We don't have a real left wing party in America, we have two right wing parties that give different flavors of corporate desired policies. One is a bad cop who outright wants to screw you over, and one is a good cop, who claims to be on your side but isn't. And that's the truth about the democrats under Hillary. She's just as bad as the republicans, she just dresses it up better.Both candidates are hated. Trump is the most hated in the history of polling, and Clinton isn't far behind. Both have favorability numbers comparable to the likes of Goldwater and McGovern.Going beyond Clinton, Trump is so dumb I almost never bring him up on here because there's nothing worth bringing up. He's an orange buffoon who talks like he knows everything, while knowing nothing. He's a total noncandidate to me. He's not even worth discussing.
I'm just fed up. This election sucks, I just want it to be over, or at the very least I want a do over without these two people running. This is the crappiest, most disgraceful election I've ever had the displeasure of seeing. Neither candidate is likeable, neither will do what needs to be done, and oh gosh, the dirtiness, if you wonder why it's gotten this bad, it's not because these were our only options. It's because the Clinton campaign rigged their way to the top. The amount of sheer dirtiness, the harassment from Clinton trolls online, the rigging, both covert and overt, the media bias, it's like something out of a 1984-esque dystopian fantasy. It's just horrible. It's just horrible. I'm done discussing this topic.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Senate update: 10/24/16
Might as well update my senate predictions too while I'm at it.
Close races
Florida - 3.4% R
Illinois - 7.0% D
Indiana - 4.3% D
Missouri - 1.0% R
Nevada - 2.3% D
New Hampshire - 2.0% D
North Carolina - 3.1% R
Pennsylvania - 1.8% R
Wisconsin - 5.3% D
How the senate make up will work
Most likely single outcome: 50-50 split
Tipping point for the Republicans: New Hampshire (D + 2.0) (0.5 SD)
Tipping point for the Democrats: Missouri (R + 1.0) (0.25 SD)
Chance of Republican control: 30.9%
Chance of Democratic control: 40.1%
Chance of a 50-50 split: 29.0%
Discussion
There's some shifting around. Pennsylvania is no longer the closest race, although is very close. New Hampshire flipped from republican to democrat so that deserves to have an eye kept on it. Missouri's race does too.
All in all, the most likely single outcome, looking at the probabilities of each race, is a 50-50 split. Now, keep in mind, that's a de facto win for democrats, assuming Clinton wins the presidency. However, chance of both republican and democratic control is very possible, assuming that the numbers shift in a uniform way. Since the default outcome is 50-50 and the numbers are so close, one race in one state could shift the entire balance. There's about a 40% chance on a probability curve of the democrats getting 51 or more seats, but there's also a 31% chance for the same to happen to the republicans. As such, while senate control slightly leans toward the democrats, it's still anyone's game and it could turn out either way. I plan on following this closely and at least doing one more senate analysis before the election.
Close races
Florida - 3.4% R
Illinois - 7.0% D
Indiana - 4.3% D
Missouri - 1.0% R
Nevada - 2.3% D
New Hampshire - 2.0% D
North Carolina - 3.1% R
Pennsylvania - 1.8% R
Wisconsin - 5.3% D
How the senate make up will work
Most likely single outcome: 50-50 split
Tipping point for the Republicans: New Hampshire (D + 2.0) (0.5 SD)
Tipping point for the Democrats: Missouri (R + 1.0) (0.25 SD)
Chance of Republican control: 30.9%
Chance of Democratic control: 40.1%
Chance of a 50-50 split: 29.0%
Discussion
There's some shifting around. Pennsylvania is no longer the closest race, although is very close. New Hampshire flipped from republican to democrat so that deserves to have an eye kept on it. Missouri's race does too.
All in all, the most likely single outcome, looking at the probabilities of each race, is a 50-50 split. Now, keep in mind, that's a de facto win for democrats, assuming Clinton wins the presidency. However, chance of both republican and democratic control is very possible, assuming that the numbers shift in a uniform way. Since the default outcome is 50-50 and the numbers are so close, one race in one state could shift the entire balance. There's about a 40% chance on a probability curve of the democrats getting 51 or more seats, but there's also a 31% chance for the same to happen to the republicans. As such, while senate control slightly leans toward the democrats, it's still anyone's game and it could turn out either way. I plan on following this closely and at least doing one more senate analysis before the election.
Election Update 10/24/16
Okay, 2 weeks until election day, this will either be my second or third from last update. I plan on doing one the day before election day and I may do another between now and then, I'll have to see. Anyway, let's look at what's going on. I hear Donald is losing badly.
Aggregate polling - 5.5% Clinton
Clinton seems to have gone down a bit in the two way polls.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates - 5.3% Clinton
Slightly lower in the four way too.
Electoral College
Added a few states. Unsurprisingly PA was added back to the list as it reverted to about 6% ahead for Clinton. Now the surprising one: Texas is in play. Yes, TEXAS, the biggest red state in the game. It's expected for Texas to become more liberal in the next few decades, but it's surprising to see it technically in play now, even if that does mean Trump will probably win it by 5 points.
Arizona - 1.3% Clinton
Colorado - 7.2% Clinton
Florida - 3.8% Clinton
Georgia - 4.0% Trump
Indiana - 5.0% Trump
Iowa - 3.7% Trump
Maine - 5.2% Clinton
Maine CD2 - 5.4% Trump
Minnesota - 4.3% Clinton
Missouri - 6.7% Trump
Nevada - 4.7% Clinton
New Hampshire - 8.0% Clinton
North Carolina - 2.1% Clinton
Ohio - 0.6% Trump
Pennsylvania - 6.2% Clinton
South Carolina - 7.6% Trump
Texas - 4.8% Trump
Utah - 5.5% Trump
Virginia - 8.0% Clinton
Wisconsin - 6.7% Clinton
Election Scenarios
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 333-205 Clinton
Last week's most likely scenario - 340-198 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=1% lead) - 333-187 Clinton
Clinton + 1 - 351-187 Clinton
Trump + 1 - 333-205 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=4% lead) - 278-165 Clinton
Clinton + 4 - 373-165 Clinton
Trump + 4 - 278-260 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states <=8% lead) - 203-90 (no winner)
Clinton + 8 - 448-90 Clinton
Trump + 8 - 203-335 Trump
Current statistics
Current tipping point: Trump + 4.3% - 268-270 Trump
The state that tips it: Minnesota (+4.3% Clinton)
Standard deviations: 1.075
Current chance of Clinton winning: 85.9%
Current chance of Trump winning: 14.1%
Previous statistics
Previous tipping point: Trump + 3.6% - 268-270 Trump
The state that tipped it: New Hampshire (+3.6% Clinton)
Standard deviations: 0.9
Previous chance of Clinton winning: 81.5%
Previous chance of Trump winning: 18.5%
Discussion
At first glance, looking at the aggregate polls and the electoral college as it has changed, it would look like Clinton's lead is lessening, but when one looks at what's going on in the electoral college and looks at the chances of various states flipping, the presidency becomes further and further out of Trump's grasp. The tipping point is currently polling 4.3% in Clinton's favor rather than 3.6%, and this means that Clinton's chance of winning has increased by more than 4% from around 82% to around 86%. It doesn't look good for the Donald. On the other hand it looks very good for Clinton.
Aggregate polling - 5.5% Clinton
Clinton seems to have gone down a bit in the two way polls.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates - 5.3% Clinton
Slightly lower in the four way too.
Electoral College
Added a few states. Unsurprisingly PA was added back to the list as it reverted to about 6% ahead for Clinton. Now the surprising one: Texas is in play. Yes, TEXAS, the biggest red state in the game. It's expected for Texas to become more liberal in the next few decades, but it's surprising to see it technically in play now, even if that does mean Trump will probably win it by 5 points.
Arizona - 1.3% Clinton
Colorado - 7.2% Clinton
Florida - 3.8% Clinton
Georgia - 4.0% Trump
Indiana - 5.0% Trump
Iowa - 3.7% Trump
Maine - 5.2% Clinton
Maine CD2 - 5.4% Trump
Minnesota - 4.3% Clinton
Missouri - 6.7% Trump
Nevada - 4.7% Clinton
New Hampshire - 8.0% Clinton
North Carolina - 2.1% Clinton
Ohio - 0.6% Trump
Pennsylvania - 6.2% Clinton
South Carolina - 7.6% Trump
Texas - 4.8% Trump
Utah - 5.5% Trump
Virginia - 8.0% Clinton
Wisconsin - 6.7% Clinton
Election Scenarios
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 333-205 Clinton
Last week's most likely scenario - 340-198 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=1% lead) - 333-187 Clinton
Clinton + 1 - 351-187 Clinton
Trump + 1 - 333-205 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=4% lead) - 278-165 Clinton
Clinton + 4 - 373-165 Clinton
Trump + 4 - 278-260 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states <=8% lead) - 203-90 (no winner)
Clinton + 8 - 448-90 Clinton
Trump + 8 - 203-335 Trump
Current statistics
Current tipping point: Trump + 4.3% - 268-270 Trump
The state that tips it: Minnesota (+4.3% Clinton)
Standard deviations: 1.075
Current chance of Clinton winning: 85.9%
Current chance of Trump winning: 14.1%
Previous statistics
Previous tipping point: Trump + 3.6% - 268-270 Trump
The state that tipped it: New Hampshire (+3.6% Clinton)
Standard deviations: 0.9
Previous chance of Clinton winning: 81.5%
Previous chance of Trump winning: 18.5%
Discussion
At first glance, looking at the aggregate polls and the electoral college as it has changed, it would look like Clinton's lead is lessening, but when one looks at what's going on in the electoral college and looks at the chances of various states flipping, the presidency becomes further and further out of Trump's grasp. The tipping point is currently polling 4.3% in Clinton's favor rather than 3.6%, and this means that Clinton's chance of winning has increased by more than 4% from around 82% to around 86%. It doesn't look good for the Donald. On the other hand it looks very good for Clinton.
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Okay, seriously, stop feeding the Donald
Okay, this is too little too late and it would've been good to write this a year ago, but I finally put it all together tonight watching South Park. This latest South Park season is about trolling. It has Kyle's dad trolling people online under the name "skankhunt42" and pissing people off. Tonight, when asked by other trolls about what makes his trolling so great, he said that trolling is like setting off a fission reaction and then watching the chain reaction as it happens. One person makes a comment, offends an entire group, this group gets outraged, is seen as annoying by others, who then get outraged at the group that was outraged, and everyone is at each others' throats over the controversy one guy started, while the guy who started it just sits and laughs and watches the chaos from the shadows.
I also watched peoples' reaction to the whole statement Trump made that he would not accept the results if he lost. Everyone's losing their freaking minds over this. "How dare he say that?! This threatens the peaceful transfer of power at the heart of our democracy! This guy is dangerous! This guy threatens the stability of America!" And....looking at the context of the South park episode, and then looking over the course of the past 1.5 years, I really start to reflect and think and put things together.
The only reason Donald is the nominee, besides Clinton's campaign trying to elevate him behind the scenes, is because Trump is a troll. That's the only reason he got as far as he did. The guy lives on controversy. He's basically Gerald Brovlaski in skankhunt42 mode in the flesh. Trump says stupid, offensive thing. Half the country is outraged by offensive stupid thing, the other half defends offensive stupid thing. He starts a chain reaction and watches the country go boom. He gets insane media coverage, this propels him to the front of the polls, and he gets more popular.
Trump would have never gotten as far as he did if the country did one simple thing: if they didn't feed the trolls. If the media didn't focus on Trump, if they didn't give him air time for his stupid comments, if they didn't raise awareness about him saying stupid stuff as a presidential candidate, he never would've taken off. Remember how I constantly complain Bernie lost because the media was rigged against him and didn't give him coverage? It was the opposite for Trump. The media fed the troll. They sensationalized it. And the guy beat out 16 other presidential candidates to become the Republican party nominee. And even now, Clinton's main campaign tactic isn't the issues, mainstream politics isn't about the issues and hasn't been for a long time this election. What we get instead is "OMG look at the stupid things Donald is saying now! He wants to grab women by the pussy! He thinks people with PTSD are losers! He won't accept the results of the election if he loses! How is this guy seriously running for president?" Um...because you fed the troll. America, you built this. Media, you stoked these flames for your own ratings, and perhaps with a little nudging from the DNC, maybe.
Like a troll, if people would have ignored Donald, he would've gone away. It's kind of late NOW for him to go away, since election day is in 2.5 weeks, but honestly, at the very least, I think we could see this election a little more coolly and objectively if we don't focus on the Donald. There's a reason I don't discuss him on this blog often. It's because there's nothing of substance to discuss, and I like to write about the issues, and things important to me. This sensationalist crap the Donald has been pulling all year gets no coverage from me because it's beneath me. There's no point in discussing such blatant, stupid trolling.
It's really a shame that the election has come to this, although maybe it's by design. As I said, it appears Clinton's campaign helped elevate people like Trump intentionally to give her an easier time. And boy, is it paying off. No one wants to talk about the Podesta emails or other skeletons in the closet Clinton has because everyone's too scared of the idea of Trump becoming president to focus on it. So instead of talking about the threat Clinton winning poses to our democracy (given all the shady crap she's been getting away with), everyone thinks the biggest threat to our democracy is Trump refusing to admit defeat. That's the state of elections in 2016, and it's a disgrace. We should've never fed the troll, we should've never fed the Donald. But apparently controversy surrounding a candidate saying incredibly stupid things wins over an open and honest discussion about the issues in this election. Clinton gets a free pass to the white house not because she's a good candidate (quite frankly she's horrible too and even people on the left should be horrified at the amount of crap she's getting away with), but because Trump is so off the wall and out of order. The democrats are feeding the troll because it distracts the American populace too, away from their own candidate's flaws. Once again, everything would've been better if we didn't feed the troll. We could've had a serious discussion on the issues, and focused on controversies that matter. Instead, we got a total crapshow and the media and the Clinton campaign sensationalizing every minute of it.
On a side note, on the idea that the election is rigged, I don't believe that Clinton needs to rig an election to beat a belligerent oompa loompa. There may have been "rigging" in the primaries, but Clinton can win this fair and square because Donald is a weak candidate whose existence gives Clinton the presidency on a silver platter. I think Donald is a sore loser who is trying to appeal to pissed off Bernie people, and at least in my case, I'm not buying it. Regardless, what's Trump going to do if he loses. Pout and moan? File some BS lawsuit? American democracy will move on without him, assuming Clinton's win is legitimate, and I believe it will be. Again, this is nothing like the primaries. This isn't one candidate using their party's establishment to snuff out the competition. This is a candidate and their party machinery up against another candidate with comparable machinery. Trump has been afforded all the advantages access to his party has provided him. If he loses, it's totally on him. Just to give my two cents on that.
I also watched peoples' reaction to the whole statement Trump made that he would not accept the results if he lost. Everyone's losing their freaking minds over this. "How dare he say that?! This threatens the peaceful transfer of power at the heart of our democracy! This guy is dangerous! This guy threatens the stability of America!" And....looking at the context of the South park episode, and then looking over the course of the past 1.5 years, I really start to reflect and think and put things together.
The only reason Donald is the nominee, besides Clinton's campaign trying to elevate him behind the scenes, is because Trump is a troll. That's the only reason he got as far as he did. The guy lives on controversy. He's basically Gerald Brovlaski in skankhunt42 mode in the flesh. Trump says stupid, offensive thing. Half the country is outraged by offensive stupid thing, the other half defends offensive stupid thing. He starts a chain reaction and watches the country go boom. He gets insane media coverage, this propels him to the front of the polls, and he gets more popular.
Trump would have never gotten as far as he did if the country did one simple thing: if they didn't feed the trolls. If the media didn't focus on Trump, if they didn't give him air time for his stupid comments, if they didn't raise awareness about him saying stupid stuff as a presidential candidate, he never would've taken off. Remember how I constantly complain Bernie lost because the media was rigged against him and didn't give him coverage? It was the opposite for Trump. The media fed the troll. They sensationalized it. And the guy beat out 16 other presidential candidates to become the Republican party nominee. And even now, Clinton's main campaign tactic isn't the issues, mainstream politics isn't about the issues and hasn't been for a long time this election. What we get instead is "OMG look at the stupid things Donald is saying now! He wants to grab women by the pussy! He thinks people with PTSD are losers! He won't accept the results of the election if he loses! How is this guy seriously running for president?" Um...because you fed the troll. America, you built this. Media, you stoked these flames for your own ratings, and perhaps with a little nudging from the DNC, maybe.
Like a troll, if people would have ignored Donald, he would've gone away. It's kind of late NOW for him to go away, since election day is in 2.5 weeks, but honestly, at the very least, I think we could see this election a little more coolly and objectively if we don't focus on the Donald. There's a reason I don't discuss him on this blog often. It's because there's nothing of substance to discuss, and I like to write about the issues, and things important to me. This sensationalist crap the Donald has been pulling all year gets no coverage from me because it's beneath me. There's no point in discussing such blatant, stupid trolling.
It's really a shame that the election has come to this, although maybe it's by design. As I said, it appears Clinton's campaign helped elevate people like Trump intentionally to give her an easier time. And boy, is it paying off. No one wants to talk about the Podesta emails or other skeletons in the closet Clinton has because everyone's too scared of the idea of Trump becoming president to focus on it. So instead of talking about the threat Clinton winning poses to our democracy (given all the shady crap she's been getting away with), everyone thinks the biggest threat to our democracy is Trump refusing to admit defeat. That's the state of elections in 2016, and it's a disgrace. We should've never fed the troll, we should've never fed the Donald. But apparently controversy surrounding a candidate saying incredibly stupid things wins over an open and honest discussion about the issues in this election. Clinton gets a free pass to the white house not because she's a good candidate (quite frankly she's horrible too and even people on the left should be horrified at the amount of crap she's getting away with), but because Trump is so off the wall and out of order. The democrats are feeding the troll because it distracts the American populace too, away from their own candidate's flaws. Once again, everything would've been better if we didn't feed the troll. We could've had a serious discussion on the issues, and focused on controversies that matter. Instead, we got a total crapshow and the media and the Clinton campaign sensationalizing every minute of it.
On a side note, on the idea that the election is rigged, I don't believe that Clinton needs to rig an election to beat a belligerent oompa loompa. There may have been "rigging" in the primaries, but Clinton can win this fair and square because Donald is a weak candidate whose existence gives Clinton the presidency on a silver platter. I think Donald is a sore loser who is trying to appeal to pissed off Bernie people, and at least in my case, I'm not buying it. Regardless, what's Trump going to do if he loses. Pout and moan? File some BS lawsuit? American democracy will move on without him, assuming Clinton's win is legitimate, and I believe it will be. Again, this is nothing like the primaries. This isn't one candidate using their party's establishment to snuff out the competition. This is a candidate and their party machinery up against another candidate with comparable machinery. Trump has been afforded all the advantages access to his party has provided him. If he loses, it's totally on him. Just to give my two cents on that.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Senate forecast 10/17/16
So I decided to look into how the senate is doing, and I'll do an analysis similar to what I do for president.
A close race
According to RealClearPolitics (where I get my polling data from), we're looking at a very close race. We have 45 safe seats for the democrats and 46 safe seats for the republicans. 9 Races are in the air.
Florida - 4.7% R
Illinois - 7.0% D
Indiana - 3.5% D
Missouri - 2.3% R
Nevada - 2.0% D
New Hampshire - 1.8% R
North Carolina - 1.8% R
Pennsylvania - 0.4% D
Wisconsin - 3.0% D
That being said, it looks like the most likely scenario for the senate is a straight up tie. 50-50. The democrats win 5 of the swing races, and the republicans win the other 4. It looks like the most shaky race seems to be here in Pennsylvania, between wishy washy centrist McGinty (yuck!, and yes, I must give my opinion here as a progressive Pennsylvanian) and bat**** crazy Toomey. Ugh, guess I'm gonna vote for the lesser of two evils there. I shouldn't blame McGinty for my beefs with the presidential election anyway I guess. I also don't think there's a third party candidate running amenable to my views, so...yeah. Might as well vote democrat there.
Anyway, in order to tip the senate to the republicans, all they have to do is win the four states they're supposed to and win PA. This would be an R + 0.4% situation. In order for the dems to win, they need to defend PA and the other four states and make inroads into either New Hampshire or North Carolina.
This will be a bit harder (D + 1.8%).
Based on the same kind of standard deviation approach I take to the presidential election, with a 4 point margin of error, 0.4% in favor of the republicans is 0.1 standard deviations. This indicates that there is a 46.0% chance of the republicans winning the senate. 1.8% in favor of the democrats is a lot harder to pull off and is 0.45 standard deviations from the latest projections. This indicates that there's a 32.6% chance of the democrats winning the senate. That being said, there's a 21.4% chance of the senate being a tie. To put this in a more readable format:
Senate chances
Republicans: 46.0%
Democrats: 32.6%
Tie: 21.4%
Once again, this assumes a probability distribution based on a 4 point margin of error, with trends being country wide. Real results may vary since if one party focuses heavily on certain races, it can tip the balance more easily.
All in all, it's anyone's race. We could reasonably see a senate controlled by either, or neither party next year. The electoral odds do favor the republicans more than the democrats though. Still, even if a tie happens, that means the vice president will break ties in the votes. Considering how Hillary is sitting at an 80%+ chance of winning, that means a tie is also a de facto win for democrats assuming a vote strictly among party lines. So while the republicans have more of a chance at outright controlling the senate, the democrats have more of a chance of de facto control, if not outright control. Still, it's anyone's game. Anything can happen at this point. This isn't the presidential race where Clinton is consistently dominating Trump. Either party can win here.
A close race
According to RealClearPolitics (where I get my polling data from), we're looking at a very close race. We have 45 safe seats for the democrats and 46 safe seats for the republicans. 9 Races are in the air.
Florida - 4.7% R
Illinois - 7.0% D
Indiana - 3.5% D
Missouri - 2.3% R
Nevada - 2.0% D
New Hampshire - 1.8% R
North Carolina - 1.8% R
Pennsylvania - 0.4% D
Wisconsin - 3.0% D
That being said, it looks like the most likely scenario for the senate is a straight up tie. 50-50. The democrats win 5 of the swing races, and the republicans win the other 4. It looks like the most shaky race seems to be here in Pennsylvania, between wishy washy centrist McGinty (yuck!, and yes, I must give my opinion here as a progressive Pennsylvanian) and bat**** crazy Toomey. Ugh, guess I'm gonna vote for the lesser of two evils there. I shouldn't blame McGinty for my beefs with the presidential election anyway I guess. I also don't think there's a third party candidate running amenable to my views, so...yeah. Might as well vote democrat there.
Anyway, in order to tip the senate to the republicans, all they have to do is win the four states they're supposed to and win PA. This would be an R + 0.4% situation. In order for the dems to win, they need to defend PA and the other four states and make inroads into either New Hampshire or North Carolina.
This will be a bit harder (D + 1.8%).
Based on the same kind of standard deviation approach I take to the presidential election, with a 4 point margin of error, 0.4% in favor of the republicans is 0.1 standard deviations. This indicates that there is a 46.0% chance of the republicans winning the senate. 1.8% in favor of the democrats is a lot harder to pull off and is 0.45 standard deviations from the latest projections. This indicates that there's a 32.6% chance of the democrats winning the senate. That being said, there's a 21.4% chance of the senate being a tie. To put this in a more readable format:
Senate chances
Republicans: 46.0%
Democrats: 32.6%
Tie: 21.4%
Once again, this assumes a probability distribution based on a 4 point margin of error, with trends being country wide. Real results may vary since if one party focuses heavily on certain races, it can tip the balance more easily.
All in all, it's anyone's race. We could reasonably see a senate controlled by either, or neither party next year. The electoral odds do favor the republicans more than the democrats though. Still, even if a tie happens, that means the vice president will break ties in the votes. Considering how Hillary is sitting at an 80%+ chance of winning, that means a tie is also a de facto win for democrats assuming a vote strictly among party lines. So while the republicans have more of a chance at outright controlling the senate, the democrats have more of a chance of de facto control, if not outright control. Still, it's anyone's game. Anything can happen at this point. This isn't the presidential race where Clinton is consistently dominating Trump. Either party can win here.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Election Update: 10/15/16
Okay, let's get to it!
Aggregate polling - 6.7% Clinton
Wow, Clinton is way ahead now.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates - 5.3% Clinton
We see a slight "spoiler effect" here, but it's not a huge deal.
Electoral College
Okay, a few changes. Since the polling is much better for 4 way races now, I'm going to be using those numbers when available instead of the 2 way numbers for the sake of accuracy. The reason I used 2 way polls up to this point is third party polling was spotty with fewer data points to go by (which makes it harder to detect trends), and because most of these polls were within 1-2% of the 2 way polls anyway. Still, I've noticed a very significant uptick in third party polling lately, so I'm switching over for accuracy's sake. This *IS* a four+ way race after all in practice, even if only two candidates have a chance of winning. I'm also not going to count states that go more than 8 points in one direction any more because those are outside of the margin of error assuming a very generous margin of error of 4 points.
Arizona - 1.0% Trump
Colorado - 7.3% Clinton
Florida - 2.9% Clinton
Georgia - 5.5% Trump
Indiana - 4.5% Trump
Iowa - 3.7% Trump
Maine - 4.7% Clinton
Maine CD2 - 5.4% Trump
Minnesota - 4.3% Clinton
Missouri - 8.0% Trump
Nevada - 1.5% Clinton
New Hampshire - 3.6% Clinton
North Carolina - 2.9% Clinton
Ohio - 1.6% Clinton
South Carolina - 7.6% Trump
Utah - 7.5% Trump
Virginia - 6.7% Clinton
Wisconsin - 6.7% Clinton
Election Scenarios
I'm going by a 4 point margin of error instead of 3 now because most polls are around 4 points margin of error, not three. This means I will be doing 1%, 4%, and 8% handicaps instead of 1%, 3% and 6% in these scenarios.
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 340-198 Clinton
Last week's most likely scenario - 322-216 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=1% lead) - 340-187 Clinton
Clinton + 1 - 351-187 Clinton
Trump + 1 - 340-216 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=4% lead) - 268-181 (no winner)
Clinton + 4 - 357-181 Clinton
Trump + 4 - 268-270 Trump
Most likely scenario with no swing states <=8% lead) - 223-128 (no winner)
Clinton + 8 - 410-128 Clinton
Trump + 8 - 223-315 Trump
Change in method
After some consideration, I decided to change the margin of error from 3% to 4%. This is because the hypothetical 3% MOE assumes perfect sampling conditions, and most polls don't have them. If you look at the MOE on the actual polls used in this analysis, the average is actually closer to, say, 4%.
I will warn you, this will make the percentage a candidate will win a bit more conservative. Since a standard deviation is now 4% instead of 3%, that means the number of standard deviations required to flip the election will be lower, and this will lower the percentage. We might also see some changes to the percentage because there is a small "spoiler effect" that benefits Trump. That being said, any change to Clinton's chances should not be taken too seriously this particular analysis because these changes will appear to benefit Trump's chances. I will be changing the previous analysis' margin of error to 4% and adjust the percentages accordingly though. That way the only real change will be the switch from two party polling to multi-party polling.
Current statistics
Current tipping point: Trump + 3.6% - 268-270 Trump
The state that tips it: New Hampshire (+3.6% Clinton)
Standard deviations: 0.9
Current chance of Clinton winning: 81.5%
Current chance of Trump winning: 18.5%
Previous statistics
Previous tipping point: Trump + 4% - 262-276 Trump
The state that tips it: Minnesota (+4.0% Clinton)
Standard deviations: 1.0 (according to new methodology)
Previous chance of Clinton winning (revised): 84.1%
Previous chance of Trump winning (revised): 15.9%
Discussion
I would not put much stock into Clinton apparently declining slightly. Once again, I changed some of my methods and while I compensated for that somewhat, I cannot compensate for the change in switching from two party to multiparty polling data. As I said, there is a SLIGHT spoiler effect that works against Clinton and for Trump. If anything, looking at the two party polls while switching over, Clinton's chances are improving. So it's possible if I used third party data for my last analysis that her chances would have been lower than they are now, not higher. I mean she did gain 18 electoral votes in the newest scenario, after all. Regardless, 81.5% is a good number for Clinton and a bad number for Trump. It seems very likely she will win the election.
Aggregate polling - 6.7% Clinton
Wow, Clinton is way ahead now.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates - 5.3% Clinton
We see a slight "spoiler effect" here, but it's not a huge deal.
Electoral College
Okay, a few changes. Since the polling is much better for 4 way races now, I'm going to be using those numbers when available instead of the 2 way numbers for the sake of accuracy. The reason I used 2 way polls up to this point is third party polling was spotty with fewer data points to go by (which makes it harder to detect trends), and because most of these polls were within 1-2% of the 2 way polls anyway. Still, I've noticed a very significant uptick in third party polling lately, so I'm switching over for accuracy's sake. This *IS* a four+ way race after all in practice, even if only two candidates have a chance of winning. I'm also not going to count states that go more than 8 points in one direction any more because those are outside of the margin of error assuming a very generous margin of error of 4 points.
Arizona - 1.0% Trump
Colorado - 7.3% Clinton
Florida - 2.9% Clinton
Georgia - 5.5% Trump
Indiana - 4.5% Trump
Iowa - 3.7% Trump
Maine - 4.7% Clinton
Maine CD2 - 5.4% Trump
Minnesota - 4.3% Clinton
Missouri - 8.0% Trump
Nevada - 1.5% Clinton
New Hampshire - 3.6% Clinton
North Carolina - 2.9% Clinton
Ohio - 1.6% Clinton
South Carolina - 7.6% Trump
Utah - 7.5% Trump
Virginia - 6.7% Clinton
Wisconsin - 6.7% Clinton
Election Scenarios
I'm going by a 4 point margin of error instead of 3 now because most polls are around 4 points margin of error, not three. This means I will be doing 1%, 4%, and 8% handicaps instead of 1%, 3% and 6% in these scenarios.
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 340-198 Clinton
Last week's most likely scenario - 322-216 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=1% lead) - 340-187 Clinton
Clinton + 1 - 351-187 Clinton
Trump + 1 - 340-216 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=4% lead) - 268-181 (no winner)
Clinton + 4 - 357-181 Clinton
Trump + 4 - 268-270 Trump
Most likely scenario with no swing states <=8% lead) - 223-128 (no winner)
Clinton + 8 - 410-128 Clinton
Trump + 8 - 223-315 Trump
Change in method
After some consideration, I decided to change the margin of error from 3% to 4%. This is because the hypothetical 3% MOE assumes perfect sampling conditions, and most polls don't have them. If you look at the MOE on the actual polls used in this analysis, the average is actually closer to, say, 4%.
I will warn you, this will make the percentage a candidate will win a bit more conservative. Since a standard deviation is now 4% instead of 3%, that means the number of standard deviations required to flip the election will be lower, and this will lower the percentage. We might also see some changes to the percentage because there is a small "spoiler effect" that benefits Trump. That being said, any change to Clinton's chances should not be taken too seriously this particular analysis because these changes will appear to benefit Trump's chances. I will be changing the previous analysis' margin of error to 4% and adjust the percentages accordingly though. That way the only real change will be the switch from two party polling to multi-party polling.
Current statistics
Current tipping point: Trump + 3.6% - 268-270 Trump
The state that tips it: New Hampshire (+3.6% Clinton)
Standard deviations: 0.9
Current chance of Clinton winning: 81.5%
Current chance of Trump winning: 18.5%
Previous statistics
Previous tipping point: Trump + 4% - 262-276 Trump
The state that tips it: Minnesota (+4.0% Clinton)
Standard deviations: 1.0 (according to new methodology)
Previous chance of Clinton winning (revised): 84.1%
Previous chance of Trump winning (revised): 15.9%
Discussion
I would not put much stock into Clinton apparently declining slightly. Once again, I changed some of my methods and while I compensated for that somewhat, I cannot compensate for the change in switching from two party to multiparty polling data. As I said, there is a SLIGHT spoiler effect that works against Clinton and for Trump. If anything, looking at the two party polls while switching over, Clinton's chances are improving. So it's possible if I used third party data for my last analysis that her chances would have been lower than they are now, not higher. I mean she did gain 18 electoral votes in the newest scenario, after all. Regardless, 81.5% is a good number for Clinton and a bad number for Trump. It seems very likely she will win the election.
Monday, October 10, 2016
On the Podesta emails
So, wikileaks has been releasing emails from the Clinton campaign, similar to the DNC leaks, and the result is more or less as damaging. I won't post them here because reasons, but you can look them up yourself and see what they have to say.
The amount of corruption in the democratic party is staggering. It really is clear they wanted Clinton from the get go and Sanders never had a chance. Now there's strong evidence Clinton's campaign helped elevate Trump to nominee status in order to make herself look good. It really makes this election feel more fixed, knowing this. Clinton being a moderate, talking down to Sanders, giving us the choice of Clinton or Trump, it seems more pre-ordained by the democratic party.
It's a shame. I had a lot of respect for the democrats before this election cycle and hoped to see them take on the corruption of the republicans. But it seems they're just as bad themselves and have no interest in the well being of the American people. I mean, I could go on and on about the content here but you can find that elsewhere.
What's disturbing is no one is bringing these emails up on the mainstream media, although can you really expect any different? They're in the pockets of the democrats after all. This makes this all the more disturbing. The democrats are manipulating our perceptions to a disturbing degree, and most, not all, but most people are buying into it. Between CTR, media control, etc., they're gaslighting the whole country and trying to make people forget that these leaks are happening, and if they're mentioned at all, it's because those dirty Russians (evidence not found) are manipulating our elections....even though Clinton has manipulated our election to an insane degree.
It's really disturbing and sickening. I'm disgusted by this behavior. I can't stand Trump, but Clinton really disgusts me too. It really bothers me that our system is this corrupt. It's like the peoples' voices don't matter. Or, in reality, they KINDA do, but the elites manipulate our perceptions so most of them blindly support them even against their best interests. Independent thought is strongly discouraged, and running political campaigns separate of these corrupt establishments is a recipe for failure. As I said, I'm just disgusted with this election. I normally feel strongly about one major candidate over another, even if I don't agree with them on everything, but this election, I just can't stand either of them.
The amount of corruption in the democratic party is staggering. It really is clear they wanted Clinton from the get go and Sanders never had a chance. Now there's strong evidence Clinton's campaign helped elevate Trump to nominee status in order to make herself look good. It really makes this election feel more fixed, knowing this. Clinton being a moderate, talking down to Sanders, giving us the choice of Clinton or Trump, it seems more pre-ordained by the democratic party.
It's a shame. I had a lot of respect for the democrats before this election cycle and hoped to see them take on the corruption of the republicans. But it seems they're just as bad themselves and have no interest in the well being of the American people. I mean, I could go on and on about the content here but you can find that elsewhere.
What's disturbing is no one is bringing these emails up on the mainstream media, although can you really expect any different? They're in the pockets of the democrats after all. This makes this all the more disturbing. The democrats are manipulating our perceptions to a disturbing degree, and most, not all, but most people are buying into it. Between CTR, media control, etc., they're gaslighting the whole country and trying to make people forget that these leaks are happening, and if they're mentioned at all, it's because those dirty Russians (evidence not found) are manipulating our elections....even though Clinton has manipulated our election to an insane degree.
It's really disturbing and sickening. I'm disgusted by this behavior. I can't stand Trump, but Clinton really disgusts me too. It really bothers me that our system is this corrupt. It's like the peoples' voices don't matter. Or, in reality, they KINDA do, but the elites manipulate our perceptions so most of them blindly support them even against their best interests. Independent thought is strongly discouraged, and running political campaigns separate of these corrupt establishments is a recipe for failure. As I said, I'm just disgusted with this election. I normally feel strongly about one major candidate over another, even if I don't agree with them on everything, but this election, I just can't stand either of them.
On the second presidential debate
So we have another debate between Trump and Clinton last night and I just wanted to give some brief thoughts.
First of all, while Trump had some good moments, I think he did poorly. His two best moments were saying Clinton should be in jail and his complimenting of her at the end of the debate when asked to do so. Other than criticizing Clinton on some character issues, he did quite poorly, especially once the discussion switched to policy. His apology for the "grab her by the pussy" video was half baked and his rambling about ISIS was just a huge distraction from the issue. One thing that I felt was particularly despicable were his blatant attempts to panders to Sanders supporters by invoking him over and over.
Trump, you're a republican. You are the total polar opposite of what Sanders stands for, except on maybe trade issues. You do not get to invoke Sanders' name in pushing for your radical right wing healthcare and education plans. Sorry, it just doesn't work. I found this blatant attempt at pandering to be extremely disrespectful to Sanders. I may not like Clinton, heck, given the Podesta emails I am growing to despise her more every day. But just like I don't think your crappiness as a candidate gives Clinton a free pass, neither does Clinton's crappiness give you one. You might be able to convince some people to support you out of spite, but you're not getting me, and I will strongly advise anyone with similar political views to me to not endorse this guy. Trump is a jerk, he doesn't deserve to be president either. He is against everything I stand for. Clinton's corruption or not, I will NEVER endorse Trump. I will encourage people pissed off at Clinton to consider third party candidates like Jill Stein or Mimi Soltysik.
Anyway, back on topic, Clinton's performance. I think she came off weak on many character issues at the beginning of the debate. However, once the debate shifted to policy, she clearly had an edge in my opinion due to a better grasp of the issues. I don't have much else to say here.
Either way, I don't feel like this debate, like the others, were really great. It seemed a bit less scripted than the vice presidential debate, but it still didn't really discuss the issues in the framing I would support. Especially on foreign policy. Why should be we intervening in Syria at all? Stay out of it. I hate how our political dialogue creates thee crises that we somehow feel responsible for solving. I don't believe America should be the world police here. I think we should mind our own business and not put our people in harm's way for conflicts that don't concern us. Amazing how these kinds of common sense positions aren't even represented in the debate, and that anyone who would hold them would be deemed as weak and incompetent.
But yeah, those are my brief thoughts on it. I think Clinton won overall, but that Trump had a few good moments here and there.
First of all, while Trump had some good moments, I think he did poorly. His two best moments were saying Clinton should be in jail and his complimenting of her at the end of the debate when asked to do so. Other than criticizing Clinton on some character issues, he did quite poorly, especially once the discussion switched to policy. His apology for the "grab her by the pussy" video was half baked and his rambling about ISIS was just a huge distraction from the issue. One thing that I felt was particularly despicable were his blatant attempts to panders to Sanders supporters by invoking him over and over.
Trump, you're a republican. You are the total polar opposite of what Sanders stands for, except on maybe trade issues. You do not get to invoke Sanders' name in pushing for your radical right wing healthcare and education plans. Sorry, it just doesn't work. I found this blatant attempt at pandering to be extremely disrespectful to Sanders. I may not like Clinton, heck, given the Podesta emails I am growing to despise her more every day. But just like I don't think your crappiness as a candidate gives Clinton a free pass, neither does Clinton's crappiness give you one. You might be able to convince some people to support you out of spite, but you're not getting me, and I will strongly advise anyone with similar political views to me to not endorse this guy. Trump is a jerk, he doesn't deserve to be president either. He is against everything I stand for. Clinton's corruption or not, I will NEVER endorse Trump. I will encourage people pissed off at Clinton to consider third party candidates like Jill Stein or Mimi Soltysik.
Anyway, back on topic, Clinton's performance. I think she came off weak on many character issues at the beginning of the debate. However, once the debate shifted to policy, she clearly had an edge in my opinion due to a better grasp of the issues. I don't have much else to say here.
Either way, I don't feel like this debate, like the others, were really great. It seemed a bit less scripted than the vice presidential debate, but it still didn't really discuss the issues in the framing I would support. Especially on foreign policy. Why should be we intervening in Syria at all? Stay out of it. I hate how our political dialogue creates thee crises that we somehow feel responsible for solving. I don't believe America should be the world police here. I think we should mind our own business and not put our people in harm's way for conflicts that don't concern us. Amazing how these kinds of common sense positions aren't even represented in the debate, and that anyone who would hold them would be deemed as weak and incompetent.
But yeah, those are my brief thoughts on it. I think Clinton won overall, but that Trump had a few good moments here and there.
Saturday, October 8, 2016
On the vice presidential debate
I know I'm late with this, I've been preoccupied with other stuff in the last few weeks where I haven't been giving this blog enough love, but I figured I should give my impression of the vice presidential debate.
If you've been looking around, and you even watched it, it seemed Pence had a huge edge over Kaine. I agree with this assessment, and believe Pence won the debate. I want to go a bit further here and explain why I think Kaine did so bad with this debate.
First of all, I wasn't really impressed with the performance on either side. The debate itself came off as political theater with biased questions and pre-prepared answers, and the discussion was full of line liners and insults on both sides. I believe this is the case for both Pence and Kaine. There was little sincerity in either candidate. They both seemed like cardboard cutouts who wanted to avoid controversy at all costs. In many ways the debate was boring and I was heavily tempted to turn it off and do something else with my time, to be quite honest. But I kept watching.
One factor that played well for Pence is that this is a different kind of match up than you get among the presidential candidates. Hillary is a boring democratic cardboard cutout with pre-scripted answers, but Trump is an oaf with a habit of saying stupid things and stirring up controversy. Trump has no idea what he's doing, he shouldn't be up on stage debating, and has no business running the country. Hillary Clinton can eat him for breakfast. But with these vice presidents, you have two cardboard cutout politicians who debate similarly to Hillary Clinton, and they're much more evenly matched.
Here's the real kicker that really put Kaine in a weak position, though. The whole night, Kaine, being the centrist as he is, was playing on defense, and debating on republican terms. If you fact checked Kaine and Pence in real time Kaine was likely more honest, since Pence was basically gish galloping lies all night, but the whole situation was clearly uncomfortable for Kaine, as he had to defend democratic centrism. Take the abortion issue. Pence is blatantly pro life, and Kaine positioned himself in such a way where he's like "I don't like abortion either but I believe that we should trust women" or something like that. This, I think, is a core problem centrists like Kaine and Clinton have. Too often they end up trying to debate on republican terms. And since they're not republicans, but don't want to embrace full on left wing positions, they end up doing this weird thing where they try to pander to the right, but then push for a center left position. And this is probably the biggest reason Pence won. Kaine is a centrist, he tried to act like a fake republican, and the real republican just outdid him. It would have been really nice to see the left actually act like leftists for a chance. To say, no Mr. Moderator, I reject the very premise of your framing of the issue, this is how I would frame it. But no, the mainstream political discourse favors the right, in such a way where you have conservatives and fake conservatives in the democratic party debating the issues from a right wing standpoint, and the fake conservatives just end up losing.
The democrats could have really been in trouble this year. The only reason Clinton is winning is because she's running against a belligerent oompa loompa who finds a way to do something controversial almost every day, and alienates voters in the process. If she were running against someone like Cruz or Rubio or Kasich, I think Clinton would likely be losing. It's only because the republicans are even less competent and unlikable than the democrats that the democrats still win. I think the Kaine/Pence debate really shows an alternate version of how this election could have played out if the GOP ran a stronger candidate. The real republicans would have trouncex the fake republicans, because the democrats lack a vision for the future we can get behind. They try to triangulate to appeal to both the left and the right, but in some ways they also alienate the left in doing so because they're conservative lites, and also alienate the right because they're not actually full blown conservatives. They might win as the lesser evil this year, but if they don't change, I expect the GOP to destroy them in a future election.
If you've been looking around, and you even watched it, it seemed Pence had a huge edge over Kaine. I agree with this assessment, and believe Pence won the debate. I want to go a bit further here and explain why I think Kaine did so bad with this debate.
First of all, I wasn't really impressed with the performance on either side. The debate itself came off as political theater with biased questions and pre-prepared answers, and the discussion was full of line liners and insults on both sides. I believe this is the case for both Pence and Kaine. There was little sincerity in either candidate. They both seemed like cardboard cutouts who wanted to avoid controversy at all costs. In many ways the debate was boring and I was heavily tempted to turn it off and do something else with my time, to be quite honest. But I kept watching.
One factor that played well for Pence is that this is a different kind of match up than you get among the presidential candidates. Hillary is a boring democratic cardboard cutout with pre-scripted answers, but Trump is an oaf with a habit of saying stupid things and stirring up controversy. Trump has no idea what he's doing, he shouldn't be up on stage debating, and has no business running the country. Hillary Clinton can eat him for breakfast. But with these vice presidents, you have two cardboard cutout politicians who debate similarly to Hillary Clinton, and they're much more evenly matched.
Here's the real kicker that really put Kaine in a weak position, though. The whole night, Kaine, being the centrist as he is, was playing on defense, and debating on republican terms. If you fact checked Kaine and Pence in real time Kaine was likely more honest, since Pence was basically gish galloping lies all night, but the whole situation was clearly uncomfortable for Kaine, as he had to defend democratic centrism. Take the abortion issue. Pence is blatantly pro life, and Kaine positioned himself in such a way where he's like "I don't like abortion either but I believe that we should trust women" or something like that. This, I think, is a core problem centrists like Kaine and Clinton have. Too often they end up trying to debate on republican terms. And since they're not republicans, but don't want to embrace full on left wing positions, they end up doing this weird thing where they try to pander to the right, but then push for a center left position. And this is probably the biggest reason Pence won. Kaine is a centrist, he tried to act like a fake republican, and the real republican just outdid him. It would have been really nice to see the left actually act like leftists for a chance. To say, no Mr. Moderator, I reject the very premise of your framing of the issue, this is how I would frame it. But no, the mainstream political discourse favors the right, in such a way where you have conservatives and fake conservatives in the democratic party debating the issues from a right wing standpoint, and the fake conservatives just end up losing.
The democrats could have really been in trouble this year. The only reason Clinton is winning is because she's running against a belligerent oompa loompa who finds a way to do something controversial almost every day, and alienates voters in the process. If she were running against someone like Cruz or Rubio or Kasich, I think Clinton would likely be losing. It's only because the republicans are even less competent and unlikable than the democrats that the democrats still win. I think the Kaine/Pence debate really shows an alternate version of how this election could have played out if the GOP ran a stronger candidate. The real republicans would have trouncex the fake republicans, because the democrats lack a vision for the future we can get behind. They try to triangulate to appeal to both the left and the right, but in some ways they also alienate the left in doing so because they're conservative lites, and also alienate the right because they're not actually full blown conservatives. They might win as the lesser evil this year, but if they don't change, I expect the GOP to destroy them in a future election.
Friday, October 7, 2016
Election Update 10/7/16
So, I've been hearing a lot about how Clinton is rebounding, and it's a Friday, so polls should be slower over the weekend. That being said, it's time for an election update since it's been over a week since my last one.
Aggregate polling - 4.5% Clinton (up from from 2.7%)
Yep, she's definitely rebounding back to where she was previously looking at the national polls at least.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates - 3.7% Clinton (up from 1.6%)
Same here.
Electoral College
Arizona - 0.7% Trump
Colorado - 5.0% Clinton
Florida - 3.2% Clinton
Georgia - 4.7% Trump
Iowa - 4.7% Trump
Maine - 5.0% Clinton
Maine CD2 - 5.4% Trump
Michigan - 6.8% Clinton
Minnesota - 4.0% Clinton
Nevada - 1.2% Clinton
New Hampshire - 5.2% Clinton
North Carolina - 2.6% Clinton
Ohio - 1.2% Trump
Pennsylvania - 7.5% Clinton
Virginia - 8.2% Clinton
Wisconsin - 4.7% Clinton
Clinton looks to have rebounded significantly and is back to where she was back in August, roughly. Let's see how it pans out in the electoral college.
Election Scenarios
I've decided to change a couple things about my methods here. Instead of having incremental changes for every point difference, I'm focusing on four levels, the most accurate, a one point lead, a three point lead, and a six point lead. I'm also going to explain where the tipping point is for the election, currently and try to estimate the percentage chance of that tipping point being reached. I will explain the methodology in another section.
Most likely scenario with no swing states <=6% lead) - 236-164 (no winner)
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=3% lead) - 301-187 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=1% lead) - 322-205 Clinton
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 322-216 Clinton
Clinton + 1 - 333-205 Clinton
Clinton + 3 - 351-187 Clinton
Clinton + 6 - 374-164 Clinton
Trump + 1 - 322-216 Clinton
Trump + 3 - 301-237 Clinton
Trump + 6 - 236-302 Trump
Methods for new sections
Okay, so I'm going to find the current tipping point of the election. I am also going to estimate the percentage chance that tipping point can occur. I will be assuming a 3 point margin of error (6 point spread), and am assuming a standard deviation is about 3 percentage points. This will allow me to estimate just how far outside of the polls given that an outcome can occur, assuming a standard bell curve. I will then use this chart to estimate the approximate standard deviation figure out what percentage chance a candidate has of winning. If there's a flat out tie, each candidate has a 50% chance of winning. If the tipping point is in my +1 model, the leading candidate has about a 62.9% chance of winning. +3 is about an 84.1% chance of winning. +6 is about a 97.7% chance of winning. One limitation of this approach is it ignores that one state may flip but others may not, which means that the candidate in the lead may have even a higher chance of winning than indicated here. As such, I am assuming that support rises and drops for a candidate universally across the country, which may or may not happen. We may see a concentrated push in a swing state but not elsewhere. As such, this isn't a perfect method, but it's something I'm going to be trying for now and perhaps refining. Without further ado, this is how this week's predictions compare to my last analysis'.
Current statistics
Current tipping point: Trump + 4 - 262-276 Trump
The state that tips it: Minnesota (+4.0 Clinton)
Standard deviation: 1.33
Current chance of Clinton winning: 90.8%
Current chance of Trump winning: 9.2%
Previous analysis' statistics
Previous tipping point (9/27): Trump + 0.6 - 263-275 Trump
The state that tipped it: Florida (+0.6% Clinton)
Standard deviation: 0.2
Previous chance of Clinton winning: 57.9%
Previous chance of Trump winning: 42.1%
Discussion
Clinton has rebounded significantly and once again has a good chance of winning the election. In my previous update it looked like it was very close where Clinton could have lost, and running my new analysis, I would have estimated Clinton's chance at a mere 58%. For people who like Trump, that's a good sign. For those who like Clinton, that's scary as heck. This time, Clinton has about a 91% chance of winning, which is pretty darned strong. Things can still turn around, there's a month until the election after all, and we saw how quickly things can change at the drop of a hat. Still, if the election were held today, you have a good chance Clinton is going to win.
Aggregate polling - 4.5% Clinton (up from from 2.7%)
Yep, she's definitely rebounding back to where she was previously looking at the national polls at least.
Aggregate polling with third party candidates - 3.7% Clinton (up from 1.6%)
Same here.
Electoral College
Arizona - 0.7% Trump
Colorado - 5.0% Clinton
Florida - 3.2% Clinton
Georgia - 4.7% Trump
Iowa - 4.7% Trump
Maine - 5.0% Clinton
Maine CD2 - 5.4% Trump
Michigan - 6.8% Clinton
Minnesota - 4.0% Clinton
Nevada - 1.2% Clinton
New Hampshire - 5.2% Clinton
North Carolina - 2.6% Clinton
Ohio - 1.2% Trump
Pennsylvania - 7.5% Clinton
Virginia - 8.2% Clinton
Wisconsin - 4.7% Clinton
Clinton looks to have rebounded significantly and is back to where she was back in August, roughly. Let's see how it pans out in the electoral college.
Election Scenarios
I've decided to change a couple things about my methods here. Instead of having incremental changes for every point difference, I'm focusing on four levels, the most accurate, a one point lead, a three point lead, and a six point lead. I'm also going to explain where the tipping point is for the election, currently and try to estimate the percentage chance of that tipping point being reached. I will explain the methodology in another section.
Most likely scenario with no swing states <=6% lead) - 236-164 (no winner)
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=3% lead) - 301-187 Clinton
Most likely scenario with no swing states (<=1% lead) - 322-205 Clinton
Most likely scenario (best guess) - 322-216 Clinton
Clinton + 1 - 333-205 Clinton
Clinton + 3 - 351-187 Clinton
Clinton + 6 - 374-164 Clinton
Trump + 1 - 322-216 Clinton
Trump + 3 - 301-237 Clinton
Trump + 6 - 236-302 Trump
Methods for new sections
Okay, so I'm going to find the current tipping point of the election. I am also going to estimate the percentage chance that tipping point can occur. I will be assuming a 3 point margin of error (6 point spread), and am assuming a standard deviation is about 3 percentage points. This will allow me to estimate just how far outside of the polls given that an outcome can occur, assuming a standard bell curve. I will then use this chart to estimate the approximate standard deviation figure out what percentage chance a candidate has of winning. If there's a flat out tie, each candidate has a 50% chance of winning. If the tipping point is in my +1 model, the leading candidate has about a 62.9% chance of winning. +3 is about an 84.1% chance of winning. +6 is about a 97.7% chance of winning. One limitation of this approach is it ignores that one state may flip but others may not, which means that the candidate in the lead may have even a higher chance of winning than indicated here. As such, I am assuming that support rises and drops for a candidate universally across the country, which may or may not happen. We may see a concentrated push in a swing state but not elsewhere. As such, this isn't a perfect method, but it's something I'm going to be trying for now and perhaps refining. Without further ado, this is how this week's predictions compare to my last analysis'.
Current statistics
Current tipping point: Trump + 4 - 262-276 Trump
The state that tips it: Minnesota (+4.0 Clinton)
Standard deviation: 1.33
Current chance of Clinton winning: 90.8%
Current chance of Trump winning: 9.2%
Previous analysis' statistics
Previous tipping point (9/27): Trump + 0.6 - 263-275 Trump
The state that tipped it: Florida (+0.6% Clinton)
Standard deviation: 0.2
Previous chance of Clinton winning: 57.9%
Previous chance of Trump winning: 42.1%
Discussion
Clinton has rebounded significantly and once again has a good chance of winning the election. In my previous update it looked like it was very close where Clinton could have lost, and running my new analysis, I would have estimated Clinton's chance at a mere 58%. For people who like Trump, that's a good sign. For those who like Clinton, that's scary as heck. This time, Clinton has about a 91% chance of winning, which is pretty darned strong. Things can still turn around, there's a month until the election after all, and we saw how quickly things can change at the drop of a hat. Still, if the election were held today, you have a good chance Clinton is going to win.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Saturday, October 1, 2016
If you think like me, here is yet another reason to not support Clinton
So, a recent story of leaked audio of Clinton talking to her donors revealed some things about what she really thinks about millennials and Bernie supporters behind closed doors. The link above includes audio on this subject.
First of all, there's a clip that discusses her ideology. She is an unapologetic centrist that occupies the space between the "center left" and "center right". She resists urges and efforts by more left wing people to turn us into "Scandinavia", and feels like she has few friends at her location on the spectrum.
Any person who has any reason to call Clinton progressive just lost the argument. She's a wishy washy centrist just like I've been saying. I want to take a more left wing direction and she clearly will resist that as president. As such, after hearing her spill the beans of what I already knew, I can once again reiterate my lack of support for Hillary. She will bring no change and will resist any attempt at more fundamental economic change. She more or less views people like me as extremists. She will not get my vote.
Now. The second part, and the part that's getting everyone upset. The second audio clip describes millennials as "children of the recession", people who have few economic prospects, despite being highly educated who feel ripped off by the economy, and live in their parent's basements.
This seemed to offend a lot of people, especially the basement dwelling part, but I don't think she's necessarily wrong, at least for me. Heck, she described me well, all things considered. I'm more insulted that she actually gets it and still does nothing for us. That she still insists on talking down and condescending to us and telling us her way is better. Here I am thinking she's out of touch, but she actually understands our pain. She just doesn't care. That's even worse. Clinton, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't seem to care. And going back to the first audio clip, she will actually resist our efforts to push for a more just economy that works for us.
So let me just say, as a left wing extremist basement dweller or whatever, she is not getting my vote. My mind was made up before this came out, but this really deals or beyond sealing it. She isn't gonna do crap in office. She has her little centrist agenda and she's gonna tell us we better fall in line or else. She understands the problem yet does little to fix it. She doesn't deserve our votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)