How We Got Here - Post 2

In Some Ways, We are Still Fighting the Civil War

In the last post of How We Got Here, I described how the forming of the U.S. Constitution embedded a conflict between Northern and Southern states, or more importantly, the classic struggle between those that live an urban lifestyle versus those the live a rural lifestyle. This struggle led to the Civil War.

Before we go further, let's get the conflict right. The Northern states which I describe as urban was not that urban. In 1850, 65% of the U.S were farmers, as oppose to 2% today. That the percentage was higher in the previous 71 years is a safe assumption. Of course, the Industrial Revolution is happening during this period and primarily in the North, but it's happening slowly at this time.

As is now, the Constitution gives states the power to decide who can vote (though now affected by the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th^[1].) Most States viewed wealth (owning property) as a requirement, believing only those economically independent and with a financial stake in the country could vote "intelligently". Not until 1840, had all States removed this requirement. Until 1913, Senators were not elected, they were appointed.

So, during this period, America was primarily and culturally a rural nation. The Federal Government was limited and run by the rich educated elite. Politicians are still accountable to the people, but the idea of a "common man" or "populace" representative "of the people" is not even being considered until 1824^[2]. What this means is that the "urban" vs "rural" dynamic we've been talking about was not, at this time, as much a conflict between elites and non-elites, but those elites that prospered from factories versus those that prospered from plantations. In other words, those that built wealth from cheap labor, including immigrants, versus those that built wealth from slaves.

Continuing along the theme of "urban" vs "rural" and the growing conflict between the North and South. These trends are known as Sectionalism, the cultural difference between the North and South as a result of the Industrial Revolution and argument over slavery that eventually led to the Civil War. Now the idea of Sectionalism has some historical controversy, because depending on how you treat it, slavery is either emphasized or deemphasized as the cause of the Civil War. I'm somewhat forced here to give my own interpretation that the growing conflict came down to tariffs, slavery, and eventually the expansion to the West. But, really slavery.

A big part of politics of this era was tariffs. As I pointed out in the last post, until 1856 tariffs accounted for 50% to 90% of the federal income. Up to the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807, there was some politics around the slave trade, but not on owning slaves. Much was done at the state level among the Northern States, but after 1808, federal institutions did more to protect the rights of slave owners to keep slaves such as the infamous Dred Scott Decision and Fugitive Slave Act. Until the fall of the Whig Party in 1852, the federal politics, at least, tolerated slavery and argued about tariffs.

That's not to say the slavery debate was absent. The Abolition Movement began before pen touched the pages of the Constitution and continued as the ink dried and the paper yellowed. Instead, it was more behind the scene politics. But as we discussed in the last post, southern states had created structural advantages to limit interference at the federal level. The abolitionists were more a cultural than a political threat, and worse a reminder of their hypocrisy. The rich slave owners of the South may have been politically safe, but not morally so.

Now, let me indulge in some personal observation. When people make the compromise of doing something wrong for personal gains, such as slavery, they don't just say to themselves "oh well". They form rationalizations claiming they are right and perhaps even noble. If contradicting opinions only come from outsiders or those without power, these rationalizations become stronger and can be based on even looser reasoning. In the best of cases, over time the wrongdoings eventually end, especially as the opportunities and threats to profits vanish. But, often the wrongdoings worsen as those involved become more entrenched in the beliefs that they are just. It's as if, behaving wrongly is no longer for personal gain but the need to avoid admitting you were ever wrong. And, once those wrongdoings disappear, the rationalizations can persist for generations.

This was the case for powerful southerners. An entire ideology formed justifying slavery as correct, natural, and even generous. This included a racist appeal to white supremacy, strained ideas that they were making the slaves' lives better, and even out of context quotes from the Bible. Furthermore, the North was unworthy to judge the South because of their abusive practice towards laborers and their use of tariffs to oppress the South.

The Constitution had already limited direct intervention from Northern states, so the slave owners just needed to convince the poorer southern non-slave owners. The abolitionists were painted as judgemental outsiders insulting all of the "southern way of life". The idea of "state's right" became fetishized to a point of national identity^[3].

So, here we have the case I described before. Slave owners developed an elaborate rationalization for slavery, which required no real logic since only outsiders could contradict them. Given time, the Industrial Revolution and expansion West was slowly removing the need for slavery, but the South had become entrenched in their own rationalizations^[4]. Making matters worse was the constant threat of slave revolts, which required ever more brutal forms of oppression. The South was a culture always under siege from outsiders and at threat from "inferiors" among them^[5].

Tensions worsened as America expanded West. Eventually, the frontier became states, and as each was added, they could tip the balance towards the North or the South. Whether or not a new state prohibited slaves ("free") or not ("slave") became a serious matter. Eventually, it was all too much. Three "free" states were added in three years, Minnesota, Oregon, and Kansas. The Whig Party disbanded giving rise to the Republican Party, which did include abolitionists. And, an "abolitionist" president, Abraham Lincoln, was elected. The Civil War began.

Of course, the South lost, ending slavery and any serious arguments of state sovereignty. However, we still live with the legacy of the Civil War and its causes. The South had used the same arguments for Secession, they used to justify slavery: States Rights, an unjust Federal Government, and a threat to the "southern way of life". Perhaps, they really did believe them. The rationalizations had been used so long, they would have moved to that stage of persistence I talked about before. Certainly, the poor farmer that died on the fields of battle believed them.

I started with how the country began with an embedded conflict of "urban" versus "rural", and the lead up to the Civil War had refined them. What had been arguments between rich elites to stay rich had led to bitter war. Still, on to today, we will hear political arguments of an overpowering Federal Government, threats to the "common way of life", and appeals to resentments towards judgemental outsiders. Nothing is new about these arguments. They are standard political rhetoric, but now they have a historical context, have a siege mentality, and could all be put under the umbrella of State's Rights^[6].

The other side had learned it's lessons as well. The abolitionists had won through the use of activism and the Federal Government to make the nation more just. This would echo in the movements of Suffrage, Temperance, Civil Rights, both sides of abortion, and many of the other "moral" movements that fuel our politics. What some would see as judgemental "elite and urbanite" outsiders, others would see as moral warriors who will eventually be vindicated by history.

The legacy lives on.

How We Got Here - Post 1

The 2016 Election Starts with America's 1st Constitution

We will soon be inaugurating one of the most unique presidents in history. Perhaps I’m right, and we will see one of the historically worst presidencies in American history. Perhaps I’m wrong, and we will see one the best and most transformative. Or, it could be neither, defined by partisan gridlock and run of the mill legislation. I’m willing to give some time before I make more conjecture, because I’d rather be wrong than right. And, more importantly, we first have to talk about how we got here.

In July 12th 1776 (yes, I’m going back that far), the US wrote it’s 1st constitution, the Articles of Confederation. Hold on a minute. 1776? 1st Constitution? That’s just 4 days after signing the Declaration of Independence, and are you saying there was more than one constitution? Yes, I am. There were two, the Articles of Confederation ratified in 1777 and the United States Constitution written in 1787 and ratified in 1789. (The Revolutionary War ended in 1783.) So, for all the time of the Revolutionary War and 4 years after, American was a Confederacy, not a Federacy. For, us to understand where we are today, we have to remember that at the time of the founding, we were not Americans. We were Virginians, New Yorkers, Georgians, Philadelphian, etc.

However, the Confederacy was not working. We soon understood that divided, we lacked effective foreign affairs, ability to handle an inter-state economy, a strong defense against threats, and more. So, the United States Constitution was a compromise between those who wanted each state to have autonomy against those who wanted a stronger central government.. As is the nature of comprise, both sides left not fully satisfied. The argument was not truly settled until the Civil War, but that comes later. Even today, the argument still surfaces in under the idea of “State’s Rights”.

At the top of the conflict between Confederates and Federalists was, you guessed it, slavery. Now, let just start by saying that slavery is an evil institution gladly scourged (mostly^[1]) from the face of the Earth. However, for us to understand the struggle of today, we cannot confused explaining the rationality of slavery as excuse or justification. We need to understand that at this time, those in governments had grown up under the rule of a monarchy where human inequality was the expected norm. More importantly, we have to understand that the leaders of the Slave States, we’re only rich and powerful man because of slavery. Not that they did not understand how slavery contradicted the founding principles of the country, However, if slavery were to be abolished, not only would the leaders of Slave States become poor and powerless, the states they were responsible for would be driven to economic collapse. For the leaders of Free States, ending slavery was a matter of morality. For the leaders of Slave States, ending slavery was an existential crisis.

And, let us not be too focused on the issues of slavery. Slavery is the top of a pyramid of issues that go back to the first walled city, rural versus urban. Walk down the streets of a big city like New York, and think about what it takes for everyone to live so close together. Imagine how you would feel about guns and pollution. How would you feel about fire regulations when a burning building can take out a city. You need rules and government to handle all those small issues that turn big when so many people live close together.

Now imagine, you live on a farm, when your nearest neighbor is at least a mile away. What others do is of little concern to you, but it takes government hours to reach you if something goes wrong. You need your gun to defend yourself, and if trouble happens your pretty much on your own. In fact, rules and regulations, especially if made for a city, can cause you to lose your farm. Those fire and fuel regulations add expenses you can ill afford, if there is a bad crop year. But for the rural dwellers matters are worse. Population and the seats of powers center in cities, not the country. A government base on city life is less likely to meet the needs of the country.

For most of human history, country folk could do little but complain. The king ruled from his castle, and you had little to say about. But, America was introducing a new form of government where the humble farmer could have as much say as a city dweller, as long as the country was not “too much democratic". That was the trick for the more agricultural Southern States. Some democracy meant no longer a king ruling from up high. Too much democracy, and those that lived in Southern States would always be subject to the whims of the more populace Northern States. So, there were compromises. The Senate, the Electoral College, and even the hypocritical and infamous three-fifths rules became compromises with the Southern States. The overall and intentional effect was to give rural voters slightly more voice than city voters.

There were many ways this struggle between rural and urban took from, and much politics that didn’t. But two ways would surface that shaped American history through to today. The first as we already mentioned was slavery, and the second was what is always fought over in politics, taxes. At the time of the founding, the main form of income for the federal government was tariffs.^[2] Which tariffs you want depended on how you make your money, but in general Southern States exported and imported more than Northern States, and so would often want lower tariffs.^[3] In fact, until 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed allowing income tax, tariffs were one of the major issues that often defined politics. We’re talking about money here. That’s where the action is. And if you think, I’m exaggerating, tariffs is one of the main ways the government favor domestic products over international ones. If anti-globalism really does become one of the main goals of our current president, tariffs will again be part of the discussion.

So, there you have it. At the very beginning, the country was founded with two sides at conflict. One wanted lower taxes, less federal government, more “State’s Rights”, and attention to parochial (conservative) values. The other wanted higher taxes, more federal government, less “State’s Rights”, and more attentions to cosmopolitan (liberal) values. Is any of this sounding familiar.

And from the beginning, the system was rigged, giving a slight advantage to politicians that appealed to the rural “conservative” voter.

This is just the beginning of the story so “stay tuned”.

What Just Happened

The Inconceivable President-Elect Trump

This will be quick because I can only write so much in my current state of shock. However, there is about to be a lot of post analysis theories, and I wanted to get in what I know before misleading ideas start to take hold.

How did he do it?

Quite simply he turned out more votes. OK that's obvious, but let see want that means isn't.

1. He turned out a historic number of rural voters. We aren't yet done counting, but what I last saw was 120 million voted in this election. By the end, you will start hearing how many records this beats. I expect it is the highest turnout in my lifetime.
2. The American Election system is designed to advantage rural voters. Note that as of writing this, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote and is likely to be the final outcome. He did not just get a a a lot of vote, he got the right kind of votes.
3. He understood it was cultural not ideological. Since Romney's defeat there has been an argument between whether the Republican party needed to reach out to more minorities or get more republicans to turnout. The 'establishment' did not believe the votes where there. The 'conservatives' believed they were there, but Romney had failed to sell 'conservatism'. They were both wrong. There were more Republicans to turnout, and they did not care about 'conservatism'.

How did we get it wrong?

For the record, we didn't (though more in CYA way). I had from the beginning kept insisting there was a chance and warned of  Shy Trump voters. Before Election Day, Clinton was up +3%. The estimate of Shy Trump voters is 2.5%. Clinton is likely to win the popular vote by 0.5%.

However, I suspect the Shy Trump voter was really a Quiet Trump voter. I don't think they lied to pollster. I think they just didn't pick up the phone.

Nate Silver did warn that a 3% polling error, which has happened before, makes Clinton lose. He also warned that the nature of the Electoral College, meant it was easier to break through Clinton's 'firewall'. Both proved true.

What I did get wrong was that I underestimated his chances of him winning the rust belt. (Though this was more in private. In posts, I mentioned the possibility. I just didn't emphasize it.)

What did not happen?

OK this is the more important point. We are about the blame a lot of people and circumstances, and I need to voice what I learned watching the election so closely before everyone starts jumping on them.

1. No one failed to turn out. Clinton gave maybe the best GOTV in modern history. We can argue a few votes here and there. The votes just weren't there.
2. There was voter suppression or shenanigans. Again remember that there was a record turnout on both sides. The Trump campaign never showed the level of organization to do so at a national scale, and the places where there might have been some, he won by enough of a margin to not have made a difference.
3. It was all racism. Maybe some, but not all. People are just more complex than that. You have to remember this was a cultural outcry from the voters, not an ideological one. Clinton has been demonized by a consistent propaganda campaign for almost 30 years. It was like trying to convince people to side with Iran to fight England. If more 'Jebs' had voted Clinton instead of Johnson, she could have won.
4. It was Clinton's fault. The vote was against all democratic and 'establishment' idea. Any democrat could have lost. Perhaps if the candidate had made an appeal to one or two of the issues: anti-globalism or an isolationism. But, that would have lost support from democrats and the republicans that did vote for her. Before you bring up Sanders, while the word 'socialism' became acceptable within the primary, you have no idea what a deal killer that is to most who remember or experienced communism, including minorities and especially Trump voters.
5. It was Third Parties. Jill Stein yes. If she had not run, Clinton would have won. But for Johnson, I've done the math. Polling that was going to Johnson mostly came from Trump. In fact, the best way Johnson would have help might have been by being a better candidate. However, that is questionable. His voters more likely would have stayed home rather than vote for Clinton.

And the Comey Letter

Here I would give some blame but not has much as you think. I pointed out early that Trump had done more than suspected to motivate republicans. Then news of premium increases mobilized more. This was all before the Comey letter, and polls for Trump were already rising. The Comey letter might have taken 1% from Clinton. (Maybe more if it was affecting those that early voted. Though that does not look like it by who voted.) What it did do was allow Trump to hold on to what he had gained longer. If Comey had never sent the letter, or at least released the clearance sooner that could have made a difference. Not much, but just enough.

Before you try to blame Clinton on this let me make a few points. The email server scandal was the result of the Benghazi witch hunt by the republican congress. It looks like Comey may have sent the letter because of those within the FBI that were going to leak it. The agents were likely motivated by the 30 year propaganda campaign, and I believe they would have been doing the same to any likely candidate for president. They had been doing the same to democrats in general.

Once it became apparent, at least to democrats, that FBI agents were trying to influence the election, polls for Clinton started increasing before Comey cleared her.

For you to say this would only happen to Clinton, you have to say that FBI agents that were willing to follow any accusations by Brietbart or Trump would have not done the same to any other candidate.

Election 2016 Update 11-07

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 30% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

The Horse Race

Numbers are moving fast and in a pro-Clinton direction (whew). As of now.

Trump Needs to Take: NH, NV, NC, FL

But NV, NC and FL are on the razors edge. As of this morning these were slight 'wins' for Trump.

Trump's Hail Mary

Trump is letting the obvious states go on auto-pilot hoping they just win "on their own". Instead, he is focusing on the 'rust belt': MN, MI, WI, and PA. The reason is he may have no other choice. There's some rumbling that he's already lost NV in the early vote. (I tend to agree). If so, NH is not going to help, and he needs to take a bigger state. These are his best chances.

The Big Mo

Some pundits like to stress 'mo' or momentum. Up until now, Trump had it, but as of the morning there was the most subtle shift back to Clinton to a +3. But, we are about to go into a statistical 'dark zone'. It's like those old movies where the hero and the villain fall into the water, and we're waiting to see who comes up.

My Numbers

So, I looked at them and they've held so far. I'm not changing them except for a 1% or so. There are ways I could do better, but I'm just going to declare myself a genius for now and leave them alone. They don't mean much now but the take away is:

• Trump's ceiling is 46% and Clinton's is 50%
• Votes to Jill Stein are taken from Clinton
• Votes to Gary Johnson are mostly taken from Trump

What to Watch Tomorrow Night

If you're like me, I'm watching with a bottle of whisky and a paper bag for when I hyperventilate. So, here's what to watch for to know when you can relax (a little).

Watch NH and NC. These states are on the East Coast and close at 7 and 7:30 PM. With luck we can get some assurance by 9 PM EST. If Trump looses NH or NC, his path to 270 becomes unlikely. Not impossible, but enough that I can put the paper bag down.

If he loses FL, it's basically over for Trump, but I have a feeling FL won't have results until late in the night. On the other hand, it is a East Coast state with early voting, so it could, also, make the night shorter. If any unexpected red state, like GA flip to blue, he's in just as much trouble.

If an unexpected blue states, like those in the rust belt, flip red, than we are in for a long night. I might have to just hide under my covers in the fetal position for the rest of the night.

If you want to watch with more detail, including which counties to monitor, here's a nifty link.

Of course, there is always a chance Trump could win until all the votes have been counted, so you can relax if the news is good, but don't drop your guard.

The Senate

I haven't talked much about, but that something to watch too. Right now, it's a straight 50-50 chance on which party controls the Senate. Here's the states to watch: PA, NV, NH, and MO.

Democrats need to get 3 of the 4. If you want more, here's a link.

So, What’s Next for the Ol’Gadfly

To begin with, this is my last daily update. My plan is to spend more time on non-political writing. (Yes, I do think of other things besides politics, though not much. Firsts, there’s eating, sleeping…. I know there’s more. Let me get back to you on that.) But, I do intend to continue this blog and post regularly. I’m thinking about once a week, but we’ll have to see,

Obviously what I write can depend on who wins tomorrow. If Trump wins, no I will not spend all my time writing about him. I want to give information that’s useful and not just rant. You know stuff like how to sneak out of the country, what to do if you survive a nuclear war, how to make food out of plasterboard….

But seriously, except for the occasional ‘meteor warning’ post, most of what I've planned is the same if Clinton wins. As I mentioned in my 2nd post, So Why Am I Here Today?, I’m engaging in some ‘short term hypocrisy’, so I will start by walking that back. I’ll then to go back to the more bipartisan writing I’d hope to start with. I may stay provocative (if Clinton wins) or less to avoid being sent to the gulag (if Trump wins). And no, I will not stop telling Trump jokes.

My hope is to do mostly what I call 'evergreen' posts, writings that are not connected to current events, such as 'what effect do taxes really have on the economy',  'what should be the purpose of third parties', or 'can politicians be honest'. Not to mention, adding to what I already started: coalitions, crazy ideas, and 'Many people are saying..."

If I talk abut Trump at all, I expect them to be 'Trump adjacent', not about him but the fallout and legacy of this election: 'the coming Republican Party fight', 'what we've learned from him', and 'how to watch for next Hitler'. But, don't worry. Those won't be right away. I know you're sick of him, and I have to recover from my PESD (Post Election Syndrome Disorder).

Election 2016 Update 11-04 and 11-05

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 36% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

Last Nights Bombshell

...was a fizzle. Not that no one tried. We had:

• More Wikileaks (yawn)
• In 2006, Trump and a consensual affair (Do you believe I have to point out it was 'consensual')
• New evidence that Melania Trump was an illegal immigrant
• Officials found guilty in Christie's Bridgegate scandal
• Democrats want FBI leaks investigated

That Beyonce wore a pantsuit is making as much noise. There is of course the non-news news that Comey has not declared all the emails duplicates.

The Horse Race

So, it is most likely to be about how each candidate is doing for the next 4 days. Looking at Real Clear Politics the polls have stabilized for the last 6 to 7 days: 46% to 48%  Clinton and 45% Trump 2-way, 45% Clinton and 43% Trump. We can think of this as Clinton has rallied her Excitables and Borings, while Trump has rallied all of his Hopeys and Trumpys. As long as this is the case, the election is all about turnout now.

As I said before, polls start to become less useful this close to the election, so I will only be using the FiveThirtyEight forecast from now on. If I see something that changes in the polls. I'll let you know,

The most important forecast number is the one I've been giving you in the 'Trump Meteor Forecast'. If we want to treat it as a poll, we can use the forecasted popular vote. (Today is 48.5% Clinton, 45.5% Trump, and 4.5% Johnson).

That's, though, to give us a value we are more familiar with. In the end, what is more important are how each state is doing. For as long as I can remember, if Clinton wins every state she is ahead in, she wins. Trump has to win all of his, and take one from her. So, I usually watch these four states: NH, NV,  NC, and FL (of course).

Clinton is currently forecasted to win NH, while Trump is only slightly above 50-50 for the rest. Of course, any of the other states could be switched, but the stats say those are the only ones where Trump has any kind of chance. I showed you a neat graphic for this in the last post, but I'll probably refer to them as this:

Trump needs to take: NH

Trump needs to win: NV,  NC, and FL

Different forecasting models could give you a slightly different list of states, of course.

Warning: Don't get to comfortable counting states. States tend to swing together. So, Trump winning FL might mean winning NV more likely. (I just made that up, but you get the point), In other words, winning 3 states is not 3 times as hard as winning one

Now, you will hear about Trump trying to win PI, MI, or WI, and Clinton trying to win AZ or OH. Maybe they know something the rest of us don't, trying to fake out the other side, defend against the other, help out senators and congressmen, etc. Trump likes to have rallies when he as to be there for another reason such as fundraising.  The point is don't let that confuse you.

Then There's the Weird Stuff

The FiveThrirtyeEight also gives the chance of crazy outcomes: recounts, deadlock. etc. The big one that needs to be point out is Trump's chance to win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote (currently 12%). This is unusually high, and Trump has a low chance to win. Therefore, if Trump wins, he has a 1 out 3 chance of it being like Bush in 2000. This means that the "democratic advantage" in the Electoral Map is not has high as most think.

The Early Vote Gets to Ignore All of This

There are currently 150 million registered voters. With an historic turnout of 60%, that's 90 million votes. Last I heard, 30 million have already voted. Given that a third have already voted does that affect the odds.

Conventional wisdom is no. The polls and forecast don't use them as a factor. In some polls, they treat early voters as likely voters and affect the forecast that way. There is some thought that since so much has happened over the last week it affected earlier votes differently. (As in those that voted before the Comey letter, than after). Conventional thought is that early voters are resolved voters making it no difference, but expect this point to be debated well after the election.

However, early voting does mean turnout, which is decisive in this election.

Election 2016 Update 11-03

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 35% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

What a difference 1 point makes

Today Trump and Clinton poll numbers have not changed in the Real Clear Politics poll average, 45% Trump and 47% Clinton (43% and 45% 4-way). So, my current numbers are holding, but just. As is, every pro-Trump voter would have in this stat, and any rise means the numbers have to be re-evaluated. I'm reviewing them as we speak, in case that happens tomorrow.

The other question is can Clinton stay at or above 47%. Common wisdom is that Trump can't go above 46% (it would be the first time ever). However, until I can find reason, Clinton could go lower than 46% and that is scary. (However, so far her numbers have been holding. I just haven't been able to support it with any math).

2-Way vs 4-Way

I've keep referring to 2-way versus 4-way polls. (Keep your dirty jokes to yourself). Just as a reminder, 4-way polls include Third Party (Gary Johnson and Jill Stein). 2-way polls don't. You could say, I should be only referring to 4-way polls. All four will be on the ballot after all, but the expectation is that as we get closer the 4-way polls move closer to the 2-ways (which is exactly what's happening). That can give you a distorted view if you only look at the 4-way early in the race. In the FiveThirtyEight forcast models, you can see that where they forecast the popular vote.

What you may have noticed is that I use the 4-way numbers to predict the lowest candidates can go and the 2-way numbers to predict the highest. This makes sense when you think about it.

Of course now that we move closer to the end of the race, we have to look at the 4-way more. The best policy is to only use these polls as a general guide anyway.

Times running out for the polls

The numbers today go back to Oct 24th and a lot has happened then. By Election Day, these numbers will have to be too far in the past, and I'll have to rely more on forecasts and projections. Of course, there will be polls going up to the day, but I don't trust individual polls. It's too easy to pick the ones that tell you the story you want. So, then I'll be just using the polls to set some boundaries.

What's up with these 538 guys?

So,  now that we are talking forecast, you should have notice I've been using those from FiveThirtyEight. I have a good understanding as to what they are doing, they had a good performance in the last election, and most importantly they give Trump the best chance.

Basically they use state polls only (no national polls) to give each state a ranges of outcomes. Then, they run the possibilities through a computer simulation several thousand times. Of course, there's a lot more details, but that's about as much as we can go into.

If you want to follow them yourself, what you most need to know is that there are three models:

The Now-cast does not make any projections into the future. It just takes the chances of winning the states and pretends the election was today. From following the guys that make this, they have little respect for this model, and kind of wish they never included it. I just use this as if it was a tracking poll.

The Polls-only looks at the chances and project what they will be on Election Day from how the numbers are trending. (For you mathy types they basically apply a linear regression.) This is their favorite and has become the only one they talk about about. You could (and probably should) just look at this one.

The Polls-plus uses the Polls-only and adjust it with political science to include factors such as the economy, past history, approval ratings, etc. As time has gone on, they've referred to this model less and less probably because this election is looking less conventional. I have been using this one in the Trump Meteor Forecast only because it give a more pro-Trump chance.

One neat little graphic I've found useful is this one (Polls-only)

This quickly tells you what states the candidates need to win and how likely they are to win them. The darker the color the best chance for the candidate.

From here we see that Trump needs to win every red state and still has to take a state away from Clinton. His best shot is to take New Hampshire.

Clinton, on the other hand, does have to hold on to all of the blue states, but does not have to take any of Trump. Also, she has a better chance to take Nevada, Florida, or North Carolina, than Trump has of taking New Hampshire.

Polls. Polls. Polls All you want to take about is polls

Yeah, it's been a lot about the polls lately. Truth is that's what most of the news has been about. But how about some other campaign stuff.

Before the Comey letter, Clinton was going into red states and trying to help win Senate seats. Now, she gotten more "defensive". Looking at the graphic you can see why. Both candidates have made their strategy clear including telling it straight to reporters.

Clinton knows she just has to keep Trump in check. She also has a lot of prominent figures that can campaign for her: the President, the First Lady, and the Vice President. This lets her campaign go into all of the blues states to keep Trump from winning them. She has been taking advantage of the  good ground operation the campaign built. If Trump does get to even in the polls with her, then who can turnout the vote wins. That's why she working so hard to get people to early vote.

Trump only has Trump. He can only be in so many places at once. So, he has also focused on the blue states, trying to win one. He just has to hope the red states go to him on their own. Since, the best he can do is get to even, he knows it's going to be about turnout, but he has not built up a turnout operation. Instead, the focus has been "suppressing" Clinton voters. (This is actually the words the Trump campaign has used, but they've also made it clear that they mean negative advertising. Though still this has created some suspicion of more nefarious measures).

Can We Talk About Some News Here

Yeah, I know it's been all about polls and horse race. That's not just me, however. It's not that there is no news, it's that there's too much. If you do any googles, you'll see different articles about the candidate every hour or so. You almost get the feeling that the media is throwing the kitchen sink at them.

The reason is less nefarious. The journalists have been working on investigative stories for awhile now, especially about Trump. However, with only a few days left, they have to publish what they've got or just throw all their research into a drawer. So, we have been inundated with half-done investigative stories.

And tomorrow is Friday. I'm not sure why, but lately breaking stories have been happening on Friday: the Comey letter, the Grabby video, etc. So, I'm anticipating it. Here are some guesses.

1. Comey reports that all emails were duplicates (fingers crossed).
2. Woman claiming Trump raped her when she was 13 finally comes forward.
3. Trumps taxes are leaked.
4. President Obama announces that Mosul has been captured.
5. Violence will occur from some white supremacist. Unfortunately, that already happened. Black church burned and 2 policeman killed in Iowa.
6. The Clinton Campaign admits to having 156 volumes of opposition research on Trump. Podesta states "we have sex scandals, bribery attempts, racist statements and more. We just could not find anything worse than what Trump as already done on the campaign."
7. Trump declares that he has secretly been in love with Rosie O'Donnell.
8. Robert LiButtie, the mob figure, who was Trump's friend. Turns out to be Goldy Digits.
9. Clinton and Trump tear off their mask revealing that they are Kang and Kodos from the Simpsons

Just as a heads up. I am intentionally going to be late on Friday's update just in case any of this happens,.

Why You Should Always Vote

You Should Always Vote Even If Don't Care Who's Elected

Voting is critical to our democracy, but we often choose not to. We see our reason for voting as just an extension of our desire to say who is in charge. It's more than that. No matter how discouraged or ambivalent you feel, you still want to vote. Besides just as a sense of duty, there are reason that are practical and to your direct benefit whatever you think of the candidates.

Politicians Only Respond to Votes

Here's a secret. Politicians don't like it when you vote. When you vote they have to do what you want instead of what they want. The more we vote, the harder they have to work. If only 1 person voted, and everyone else stayed home, politicians would be ecstatic. They would only have to please 1 person. If I could think of way, I'd make it impossible for politicians to know how many have voted.

So, when you stay home, politicians stop caring about you. Sure, when you vote, the politician has no idea who you are, but he does know about everyone like you. They spend a lot of money figuring out what groups vote and what groups don't. Why do you think that is? It's so they can figure out who can be ignored.

Have you noticed that politicians care more about older voters than younger voters? That's because the older you are the more likely you are to vote. Hey, younger voters, do you care about the deficit, environment, and college cost? Then vote as much as older voters do.

If you feel the government doesn't care about, you're right if you haven't voted.

Voting Makes You More Important

When I was younger, I use to get stopped a lot by police. When asked for my id, I would also hand over my voter registration card. I have no idea if it had any affect, but in one non-confrontational act I had informed the police that I was citizen, had a stable residence, and was aware if my rights.

Voting Is Good Insurance

I know people that had problems solved by contacting their local politicians. They weren't lobbyists, campaign contributors, or even wrote a blog. They were just voters. Maybe your not getting the response you need from the police, have a fine you can't pay, or need a pothole fixed. Believe or not, a lot of elected politicians will help if you have a good case, sometimes even if it has nothing to do with the government.

They'll do it because you're a voter, and they work for you. But, guess what? Most of them look to see if you voted in the last election. If you haven't, they are less likely to help you.

Note: when you do this, you want go with the most local elected official you can find. The less people they serve, the better. For example, contact your state legislator before you try your congressman. Just the fact that you know who they are makes an impression.

Voting Is Critical to Our Democracy

The whole idea of voting is that it makes our leader responsible to us. Here's the beautiful part. It does not matter if the best leader gets elected. Just the fact that leader feels responsible to us make our country more just, free, and better working.

When you don't vote, you contribute to a viscous cycle. The leaders become less responsible. The citizens become less engaged and vote less. And so on.

When you do vote, you contribute to a virtuous cycle. The leaders become more responsible. The citizens become more engaged and vote more. And so on.

The saying is really true:

"In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve" -- Joseph de Maistre

Note: For all of you who want more voting restrictions: voter ids, less voting days, tougher registration, less voting booths, testing for voters, etc. Why are you being a sucker to the politicians? Remember, they want less voters, not more. How can you believe in smaller government, less regulation, and more freedom, then hand over to politicians and bureaucrats the ability to pick who they work for. That's like letting children pick their parents. If you think the answer is to restrict voting, then shut up about government overreach. Yes I'm talking to you, Libertarians and Conservatives.

Election 2016 Update 11-02

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 32% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

Poll Watching

I'm still trying to re-evaluate how to look at the polls, just like everyone else. The problem is that when Trump reached 45% 2-way that invalidated my prediction that he would still be limited by the 1st Debate and could only go to 43%. The 45% is still within the bounds set in The Final Stretch, just barely. If Trump goes higher, then I will re-work the numbers.

For Clinton, we have the opposite situation. She's stayed above 47% 2-way since the first debate, and her 4-way numbers are even more consistent. She's stayed 45% to 46% since Oct 16th. If I have to change numbers there's a chance I can raise her floor.

Having to now factor in the Obamacare news, I would not be surprised if Clinton is gets to 1% or even tied with Trump. If that scares you, it scares me. Just to bring our heart rates down, let me say that the state by state polls are telling us a less scary story. Let's suffice to say, that's looking like Clinton 48% to Trump 45%, but there's a lot of more details, I would need to go into. (There are 50 states after all.)

I'll hopefully be able to be more definitive tomorrow.

Enough with the Emails

The FBI should be able to finish their cursory investigations before the end of the week. If they can find only duplicates, Comey should make an announcement. To do otherwise, would be criminal consider the chaos he's already made. However, that's unlikely. Even if one email needs to be evaluated, that starts a bureaucratic process that goes past the election.

Fingers crossed.

Closing Arguments

Last Chance to Stop the Trump Meteor

We have less than week, and Trump still has a chance to win. Maybe not the best chance, but still too much for me to get to sleep without drinking. So, my job is not done. I've given a lot of reasons no one should vote for him. 10 to be exact.

1. Historic Lack of Experience
2. Sows Distrust in Our Democracy
3. Not Committed to the Job
4. Does Not Learn from History
5. Lacks Moral Courage
6. He is a Bad Investor
7. He has a Conspiratorial Mind
8. He Speaks Recklessly
9. He Can't Hire Good People
10. Violence is Acceptable to Him

Disturbingly I have more. I just ran out of time, and to be honest, 10 is already too many. 10 is confusing and overwhelming. In truth, I would make a better argument by picking about 3. But, that's where you come in. If I've convinced you that Trump is a uniquely bad choice for president (or you had already come to that decision), I hope that I have armed you better to convince others.

So here, I would like to consolidate them to what you could say to those that have not followed me. However, first I'm going to explained what reasons I have not said.

I really mean it when I say "no one should vote for Trump". I believe I have shown that he should not be president beyond our traditional partisan argument, and wherever I could, I pointed out how no other candidates before him had these flaws. You could say Trump really is "temperamentally unfit". That's not just a campaign line.

I've avoided psychoanalyzing him. That is tough, because by Occam's Razor that is the simplest answer. All reasons I give above could be explained by a personality disorder. (Narcissism seems to the most popular one). But, this is a bad approach in politics. First, I am not equipped to make such judgments. Second, the way people campaign is often different than the way they are in private, just as you would say with an actor. However, the way politicians campaign is often how they would govern. Most importantly, that approach underestimates him. It also underestimates his campaign and his supporters. Instead, I've looked at the outcome of his behavior.

And finally, I really have not gone after his inflammatory statements. We like to say that actions matter than words, and that is true. However, politicians do little more than talk, especially during a campaign. So, where I could, I focused on his actions (or more accurately his lack of action). You can see this, in reasons 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10, which also reflect his character. Reasons 6, 7 and 9 are about his judgment and management. The rest, 2 and 8, while being about what he says, is not about the words he uses, but the harm they can cause, and how his choice to use them are irresponsible.

Again, this is a lot to take in so, let me bottom line it for you:

• You should not vote for Trump whether you're a republican or agree with what he says. He's just a bad choice for president, period.
• It does not matter if this is all an act. Even his act shows he should not be president.
• No, it has nothing about him being "politically incorrect" or not being part of the "establishment".

Got all that? Good, because when that Trumpy says you're just part of the establishment and blinded by liberal media, that's what you say.

Now here's what those not convinced need to hear.

I know Trump is a bad choice, but I just can't vote for Clinton
When did you give up on the Reagan Revolution?  Because the conservative movement can survive four years of Clinton. Trump will destroy it. He'll start an international incident or war (8), cause domestic violence and riots (10), and overreach possibly causing a constitutional crisis (2). When he eventually fails he'll try to cover it up with conspiracy theories (7), and we better hope his supporters don't back him. Then every republican politician has to deal with an insurgency, if that hasn't happen already.

With Clinton, there'll be enough republicans in the Senate and House to keep her in check, and in 2 years they'll be more republicans to cover whatever loses. What happens if Trump ends up fighting with the Senate and House, which given past history is likely. What happens to the Republican Party then? If Clinton is such a failure, she'll be beaten in 2020. Trump's failures will be attached to the party and the conservative movement. That means the democrats get to redraw the district lines. Republicans might not be able to have any control in government control for a decades. They'll be a generations where Trump has defined what conservatism and the Republican Party is.

I really care who gets nominated to the Supreme Court
Forget that. Because of the filibuster, there either won't be another Supreme Court justice, or he'll be a moderate. For that false hope, the Republican Party and conservatism is destroyed. (See above).

It's OK. He'll have good people around him
Forget that. Good people won't work for him (9). So, where are the "good people" working for him now? And that should worry you. He will go into office with no understanding how government works (1) and no interest in learning it (3,4). He'll be in the control of whatever Svengali is able to manipulate him.

He's a good business man. He'll figure it out
Hah. Have you looked at his business record. Oh don't get me wrong, he's a good salesman. But that's about it. If you just look at the decisions he's made through the campaign (6), and he won't get better. He's not willing to do the work (3) or do the research (4).

All politicians are the same. There's no difference between Trump and Clinton
In any other election, I might agree with you, but Trump is different, and not in a good way (1,2,3,4,5, and 10). I know politics is discouraging, and none seem to be willing to stand to their principles, but they've all shown some respect for our democracy (2). That's what you have to ask yourself. Do you believe in democracy? This is one time in history you either show it or you don't.

The system is rigged. We need Trump to tear it all down
Honestly. It's really not that bad. It's been a lot worse. Before you ignore me, please just take a breath. You have the time to think it through and should. History is not on your side.

But, I'm willing to consider what you say. Are you ready to do the work? Because for that to happen you'll have do more than vote. After Nov 9th, Trump will be all alone (9). You think the rest of the Republican Party will help him? That means you'll have to do more than just go to a rally. You'll have to be a really dedicated activist. Because Trump is not up to it (1,3,4). As for me, I would not put myself in that situation. Yeah, he's all tough when he has a crowd cheering him on, but when he's really had to stand for something, he's failed every time (5).

We have some serious problems: immigration, trade, bad foreign policy. Only Trump is saying he'll do something.
OK. I get that. Good thing we live in a democracy. If Clinton wins, you can write your congressman and get involved in congressional primaries. Note how well it worked for the Tea Party. That's why it's good that Clinton is a panderer. If you make enough noise and good arguments, you can get what you want.

But, you need government to work, even if not that well. I know you don't see it, but Trump is going to be a monumental failure (see first answer). When that happens, you know what those craven politicians do? They don't just blame the man, they blame his idea. Just ask an evangelical conservative. Suddenly the Iraq War and Financial Collapse was their fault.

With Clinton, you can push her to do what you need, and even if you don't, there will be another, better candidate now that politicians knows what you want. With Trump, well, you better not have a single doubt about him, because if he fails it will be big, and you'll never get what you want.

In Summary
Now of course, you'll have to make all this your own. Figure out how to say them in your own words, thoughts and belief. For me, this was easy. These aren't just arguments I came up with to trick someone to my point of view. I believe every word.

Election 2016 Update 11-01

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 31% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

What's Old is New Again

Would you believe. There's a chance that some voters are responding to an actually issues. On Oct 24th, the Department of Health announced a rise in premiums. You probably have heard this but not much. The news ended up 'siloed' in conservative media, and some are arguing that Trump's polls increase is mostly due to this.

Are My Numbers Wrong?

In my Oct 28th update, I set some new numbers.

39% Trumpys
4% to 6% Hopeys

43% Borings
2% to 6% Excitables

6% to 8% No-Way-No-Hows

2% to 6% Wait-n-Sees

However, Trump has had a steady raise and hit my estimated ceiling of 45%. Right now, Trump is enjoying a triple hit.

1. A good enough performance on the 3rd Debate to encourage some Hopeys 
2. News of higher premiums for Obamacare 
3. The Comey notification to Congress 

The numbers are still holding, including the prediction that Clinton still leads by 2% to 3%. But, if Trump goes higher, my assumption that Trump is still defined by the 1st Debate is probably wrong. That can change everything.

Election 2016 Update 10-31

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 26% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

Update on the Techy Stuff

In my last update, I went over the technological aspects of Comey's announcement. In part, I voiced some consternation as to why some basic scanning had not been done. Today, I have an answer to that question. Remembering that the investigation up till late last week only involved Anthony Weiner, the FBI needed a new warrant to go into Huma Abedin's emails. They obtained that warrant today.

Now that they have the warrant, the FBI appears to be following steps similar to what I outlined. As per Pete Williams reporting on NBC:

“They’ll narrow them down to look at just those dating from the time Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Then they’ll weed out any that are not about government business. Agents will use automated software to search what’s left for duplicates they’ve already found during the investigation of the Clinton e-mail server. Any that remain will be checked for classified information,” Williams reported on “Today” this morning. “Officials say there’s no way to tell how long that will take. But they say if it goes quickly, and nothing classified is found, the FBI could say so within the next few days. It largely depends on how many of the e-mails are duplicates and how many are new to the investigators.”

Abedin is also stating that she does know how the emails got there, suggesting that it may have happened through an automated process (and assuming she is telling the truth). This would be similar to what I described would happen if she had setup her email account on it. Though there are other automated process that I would need more information before ruling out.

Maybe Not Clinton

A subtle point is that none of the statements have just used the word "Clinton" . The statements have used the word "Clinton Investigation". We tend to forget that the investigation towards the private servers was not just about Clinton. It was about everyone using the servers. So, the Comey statements may only be considering Abedin as culpable. Again, another detail that should have been clarified.

This is me reading in between the lines, so remember to consider that as you form your own opinion.

Election 2016 Update 10-28

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 21% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

Yes I Know It's Saturday

As I was writing this, news hit that FBI Directory Comey had notified congressman of potential new Clinton emails found. If you've had any contact with a human being or electronic device, you've already heard about this. Comey statement amounted to "I may have found something important, maybe not. I'll tell you later. I don't know when.". That has us all chasing our tails.

So, I wanted to let the story brew a bit.

Is the Trump Meteor Going to Hit Now?

How has Trump chances of becoming president change? The short answer is that his chances have probably risen to 30% and in an extreme case 50%. Obviously, that's all subject to what polls say that have not come out yet.

So, let's look at what numbers we have.

In a previous update I gave post new Post Labor day numbers.

39% Trumpys
4% to 6% Hopeys

43% Borings
2% to 6% Excitables

6% to 8% No-Way-No-Hows
2% to 6% Wait-n-Sees

Now nothing this bad has happened to Clinton since Labor Day, so can we still say her 43% base still holds or do we need to go back her pre-Labor Day of 39%? I believe we can still stay with the 43% for two reasons. One, the No-Way-No-Hows (Johanson and Sten voters) has been around 7% lately, so attitudes towards Third Parties definitely changed. Two, the numbers were formed by Trump's horrible performance from the 1st Debate. Comey did not suddenly prove Trump is now 'temperamentally fit'.

The news analysts are saying this will not take votes away from Clinton, but would add votes to Trump. This translates to Clinton being ahead by 2% to 3% instead of 5% to 6%. I would agree with this, but I'd like to back it up with more math.

If we assume that No-Way-No-Hows are going to be 6% and Trump can't beat a post-Debate high of 43%, the Clinton starts with 43%, leaving 6% of Excitables/Wait-n-Sees for her. Her maintaining 2% to 3% lead looks quick likely with those numbers. That coincides with where the race was Oct 2 to Oct 3, which is 30% in the FiveThirtyEight Nowcast.

Now, if there are the Shy Trump voters mentioned in When Can We Say Trump Will Not Be President? and/or more bad news for Clinton, Trump could pull even, and thus 50%.

Here's the good news. Comey provided such vague information, the news cannot talk about about this for 10 days. If Comey provides more details, the news is more likely good (all were duplicates, etc.) for Clinton, because the bad outcomes (ground to reconsider prosecution, etc.) take longer to reach. Clinton also has all the tactical advantages if the race goes to turnout, and over 12 million have already voted.

Tech Talk

I'm not going to go into all the details of the story because you can get that from all the professional news sources. However, fortunate for you, I understand the technology well, and here I can add.

Following some bread crumb, I can speculate with some confidence that the Clinton servers were using Microsoft Exchange Server. That's important because different email software stores emails differently. In all cases, emails are stored on the server. With Microsoft Exchange Server the emails can potentially be stored in two other devices: the one that received the email and the one that sent it. So, now we can see why Huma Abedin laptop becomes part of the investigation.

The next thing to know is how emails get deleted. When Office 'deletes' an email, it archives it instead, in case you want the email back and technical reasons we don't care about. But the archived emails are marked as what can be removed if you need more space on your hard drive. Then, the OS deletes the emails.

However, when an OS deletes a file, it does not delete the data. It removes knowledge of where the file is on the hard drive. You can think of it as more the OS 'forgets' the file. Now in time, that hard drive location will be re-used, but until then you can recover the deleted files with special software and some work. The company managing the servers did more. They used a software, BeachBit that overwrite those location to prevent them from being recovered.

My guess is that the FBI used a special technique that read trace magnetic field off the hard drive to read 'bleached' data. (Yep, that's some super spy type stuff there.) But, the technique cannot 100% restore the data. The FBI was left with only what Clinton had handed over, what had been sent to/from others, and the fragments they had recovered. They can never be sure they got every email.

It's a good bet, however, Abedin unlikely went to such extraordinary measures. So, you can see why there would be some hope that the FBI could find emails they had not seen before. But, any of these emails would have been duplicated on the server, and in all likelihood, the FBI has already seen them.

Now lets talk about how email gets sent. When you send an email, until it reaches the recipient, anyone with the technology to 'listen' can read it. Doing so is hard and the email is sent in mixed pieces so it's not as bad as it sounds. You can think of it as talking to someone in a crowded room where everyone is talking loudly. Someone could be listening in, but they're more likely only to hear fragments of your conversation. When you're worried about state secrets, however, that can be enough.

The only way to thwart easedropping is to encrypt the emails as they are sent. This though requires coordination between the software the sender and receiver are using. Even then, if a hacker can get into the device he can 'infect' it with software that reads the emails before and after they are secured.

This is where the story gets bad for Huma Abedin. Since Anthony Weiner also used this laptop, it could not be a secured device, and he definitely does not have security clearance. So, if Abedin sent classified emails to this laptop, she could be subject to prosecution. Currently the security clearance of Abedin is unknown, but she did have it as aide to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

What is still murky to me is how Clinton could be held accountable. If Abedin had set the laptop to use an email address from the private server, than it would have downloaded the emails automatically and indiscriminately. But even if Clinton had sent a classified email or Abedin had forwarded one, there still would have to prove 'intent', which is the reason she was not prosecuted before.

What is also murky is some lack of details being provided by Comey. I understand why he can't remove the possibility of none of the new emails being classified. However, I could find out if any had a classified headings within a few minutes. With a couple of days I could write a program that tells how many are duplicates. Both these facts would clarify the severity of what is being investigated.

Do I need to say this is all speculative on my part, and more information could invalidate all I have said. (Is this a cowardly qualification? You bet.)

Election 2016 Update 10-27

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 19% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

There's an Election I Guess

You may have been hearing some consternation, and boasting, about recent changes in the polls. If you followed me so far, you know that's not unexpected. I totally called it, and a lot of people are giving me credit. Now let's see if it goes down again.

Here it get's a little complicated. We have to always remind ourselves that the polls we are seeing today are about events last week, in other words the 3rd Debate. The polls we see in the future will be from the quieter period, where we mostly talked about how far behind. Then once the polls start to reflect what's going on right now, we'll be voting. So, likely we'll see a small oscillation for Trump around 41% 2-way and 40% 4-way.

More significant is that Gary Johnson dropped to 5.5%, the total Third Party is bellow 8%. There's not much of those votes left, but they have to go somewhere.

Drip Drip

Because Trump's chances of winning have decreased, what he says and does matter less, so his antics consume less of the news. That means there's more time to talk about what Wikileaks.

Today's was pretty bad. A released memo shows more clearly how the Bill Clinton gained financially through connections with the Clinton Foundation. And there were others. But, each of the stories get complicated, which is why I'm not trying to explain them. The take away is that complicated stories don't get far in the two weeks of an election.

What they confirm is that the Clinotons engaged in influence peddling to be come rich. What so far has not been shown is any breaking of laws or policy done for money. When that happens, we are talking real news. Without it, Trump may gain votes, but Clinton doesn't lose any. In other words, she still wins.

Election 2016 Update 10-26

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 17% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

There's an Election I Guess

Looks like there still is a 1% post 3rd Debate bounce. Now it is also showing in the 4-way poll. More interesting is that Gary Johnson went bellow 6% today. That has not happened since June.

Election 2016 Update 10-25

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 17% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

There's an Election I Guess

Today, the small 3rd Debate bump is starting to show.

Part of this is an artifact on how Real Clear Politics is calculating the averages. This snapshot starts at the last date included, Oct 13th.

This barely noticeable in the 4-way, where it really counts. (On Oct 13th, Trump was 39.1%. Today he is 39.9%) Let's see if it fades as I have been projecting.

Election 2016 Update 10-24

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 16% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

There's an Election I Guess

The ability to keep talking as if Trump could win is getting harder and harder for the press. Coverage of the Wikileaks reveal is increasing but not dominating the new. Turns out talking about what's in them is really boring.

What is the main election story are the senate races. (Yeah, there are more elections this year than President. Who knew?)

Going into 34 different senate races are way beyond what I could do here (and would also end up as a cure for insomnia). Instead, I've just been following the FiveThirtyEight forecast. The general outcome is that whoever ends up controlling the Senate, the margin will be narrow, and currently democrats are the favorite. In other words, exactly what I would have told you 2 years ago.

But, hey what else would we talk about? Right now the chances for democrats controlling the senate is looking good, about 65/35. They just have to get a +4 seats (given Clinton is likely to win) and republicans have to defend 24.  3 republicans already look like they have flipped (IN, IL, WI), while only one democratic (NV) is competitive, so democrats only need to win 2 more. In other words, democrats best chance is to win 3 of the the 4 most competitive: PA, NH, MO, NV. Be warned, that this forecast is very volatile, so don't get cozy.

Democrats taking the House is not worth talking about yet. (Even though many in the news are. They have to talk about something)

In the When Can We Say Trump Will Not Be President?, I mention Trump might pull it out if he did three things. We're getting to whether we can see if there is any validity.

I've given Trump a 1% to 2% bump from the 3rd Debate, but I may have overestimated that. We still are not seeing it. In Real Clear Politics, it looks like I may have overestimated. The enthusiasm I saw the day after has waned and may have just been "happy talk" (short term denial). If I only look at the last 3 polls, I do see that 1% bump, so my genius may still become evident in a few days. But even then, the increase will be short lived.

The reports on early voting is getting muddled by partisan reporting, so I would describe it as mixed. However, I am more swayed by what I'm not hearing. Trump is working with a narrow demographic and behind in the polls. I'm not hearing about waves of registrations or votes in those demographics. Just as important, those voting now are doing so in the shadow of Trump's failings. Each vote now, is one that can't be swayed by later Wikileak reveals or other "October surprises".

Both those two, data points do not bode well for a 3rd Debate shift, hidden voters, or low turnout. There's still some time for Trump, but it's running out.

You've Disappointed Me Again McCain

I've been pushing the argument that Trump Will Not Decide the Next Supreme Court Justice, Nor Will Clinton. The reason I've been doing, so is that if you are are true conservative, this is the only reason to vote for Trump. It saddens me that so many are having to compromise their principles for a what was never possible. Well, I saw some news that supports my claim.

Tell every conservative you know.

Election 2016 Update 10-21

State of the Election 2016

Trump Meteor Forecast

The Trump Meteor has a 16% of striking the Earth and destroying civilization as we know it.

The News

And the news of today is that... there's no real news. Everyone is talking about what they talked about yesterday. Hey, I'm not a news network or radio show. I don't have to fill dead air. Be thankful for that.

Did Trump Ever Want to Win?

Maybe This Was All Just a PR Stunt

If you read Trump’s Utility Function, I made an offhand comment that the Trump Campaign is just an elaborate hoax, and all Trump really wanted to do was start his own TV network. Given how he’s been behaving since the 1st Debate, if we now applied the utility function, that would be the outcome. And I’m not the only one suggesting this. But let’s be clear. I totally called it, and a lot of people are giving me credit.

No, I left it as a offhand comment, but I never stopped thinking it. At the time, he had already gotten the nomination, and we thought he might pivot to a normal candidate. (We were all so innocent then). That possibility never left my mind, but when you’re trying to warn people about a meteor falling towards the Earth, you don’t suggest it could be an advertisement for Paramount’s next disaster movie, “The Day Trump Destroyed the Earth”.

So, first a little history. Presidential candidates that don’t intend to win are not unusual Often, their reason is to make a social impact and don’t get past their parties nomination. Bernie Sanders is a great example of this. He wanted to make sure Clinton kept to the “left” of the democratic party, when she was likely to to move “center’ or even ”right”. There have also been notable cases in history who ran as independents or obscure third parties to either make a point or keep their issues from being ignored. The first African American, George Edward Taylor^[1], and woman, Victoria Woodhull, were such cases. In fact, the vast majority of third party candidate, despite what they say, don’t expect to be elected, but if they get significant numbers of votes their platform can be adopted, or at least considered by one of the two major parties. A la Libertarians.

However, lately there has been a new development in our electoral system. Running for president, at least as a republican, is a good way to make money. After McCain lost to Obama in 2008, his Vice Presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, then a relative unknown, became a star to certain segments of republicans and conservatives. In a very real way, she was pre-Trumpian. 

Then, shortly after returning to her governorship, she decided to quit before the end of her first term. (You betcha.) Maybe she did it because several problems were about to surface about her governorship. Maybe she was traumatized by Tine Fey.

More likely she saw the opportunity to make lots of money.

She was a conservative celebrity and like all celebrities she could make money with her name. There were books, bus tours, employment on Fox News, a reality TV show, and, yes, even a Sarah Palin network. She’s 12 hours past her 15 minutes of fame now, but she accumulated 12 million dollars before fading away. Not bad for 3rd runner up to Miss Alaska.

Also from that primary, Governor Mike Huckebee turned his failed presidential run into a show on Fox. The 2012 and 2106 primary candidate Senator Rick Santorum runs a movie studio. There’s a political entertainment industry, and running for president is a good way to make money from it.^[2] And let’s be clear. Anybody can get in the “political entertainment industry”. I hear they’ll even let anybody blog about it.

And then there was Herman Cain. Former CEO of Godfather’s pizza and “motivational speaker”, Herman Cain for a heartbeat looked like he might win the Republican Nomination, only to be completely undone. Since you can’t say I’m running for president to sell books, speaking tours, and the chance to complain about Obama on Fox News, I never heard Herman Cain actually say he was doing it for the money. However, given his lack of experience^[3] and total lack of preparation, he would have been deluded to think he was making a real run for president. This does not look like a man who wanted to be president.

Cain, also, shows the perils of running this way. The problem was that he started to succeed. If he had gone relatively unknown, he would be selling his 5th best seller now. However, when you look like you might be president, your whole life gets scrutinized. There better not be something you don’t want the whole country to know. Oops.

So, now we have the 2016 primaries. For a hot minute, Ben Carson looked like he might be the winner. Again, Carson, the former neurosurgeon, best selling author, and “motivational speaker”^[4] announced his bid for president. This time, Carson was already making his money from “political entertainment”. At the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, he gave a powerful conservative speech. This led to a profitable career selling books, writing columns, and showing up on Fox News. Upon his announcement to run for president he made even more. But again, given his lack of preparation, he’d have to be delusional to believe he could be president. Fortunately, for Ben his undoing was only himself.

OK, maybe he was deluded. But, the point is still true. He’s made big bucks running for president, and unless Trump brings him down, he’ll make more. (If you think I’m being to hard on poor Ben, note he works for the Trump campaign now. If that is not proof of lack of judgement, I don’t know what is).

So now what about Trump. If you’ve been following me, he’s ignored all common wisdom on how to be president. And before you push back at that, he’s fighting to keep 40% of the vote. Scott Baio could get 40% of the vote. Heck, Gary Johnson is getting 10%. But 40% viewers for a media empire is a win.

Yet, Cain has show us that there is peril in doing too well. Maybe Trump never expected to win the nomination. Then again, he should not expect that to be a problem. After all, Trump has been in the public eye for decades, surely there’s nothing out there to ruin him. Like say a video tape where he confesses to sexual predation.

There are, however, some big differences between our Trump and Palin, Cain, and Carson. To begin with, while there was a good financial upside for them, we’re looking at small potatoes for Trump. (Unless he still needs to pay off those rubber chickens.) There would have to be something bigger.

Another differences is those other candidates started with some true bona fides in the conservative movement. What bona fides did Trump have before running? Bitherism? (And if it's that’s, it suggests some disturbing directions I’ll have go into later.)

And of course there’s the difference that Trump actually got nominated for president. Bernie Sanders may have started out wanting only to push “left” issues, but once it looked possible that he could get the nomination, Sanders ran to win. I would not be surprised to see him try again in 2020. Once Trump got the nomination who knows how is thinking changed.

Remember that wanting to be president or start your own media empire are not mutually exclusive. Each can be a back up plan for the other. In other words, Trump could be doing this “be president” thing and the media thing is just what happens if he falls short. That’s actually a good way for a businessman to think. (Yeah, I just said Trump did something right in business. Don’t get used to it.) Having a plan B from the start, however, is a disaster for politicians. People can tell when you’re not giving your all.

When I saw Trump’s 3rd Debate performance, I was left with the impression that he still wanted to be president. By saying what Evangelicals and Conservatives wanted to hear, he may have gotten up in the polls slightly, Not enough to close the gap, but if the scenario I described in When Can We Say Trump Will Not Be President? is valid that could be enough.

So, what position is ole Trumpy boy likely to be in on Nov 9th? A good guess he will have gotten at least 35% of the vote, and given what they were willing to put up with, they would be enthusiastic voters. However, they will not all translate to viewers (or followers). Some of those are not voting for Trump. They’re voting against Clinton or for the Republican nominee. Then, we are talking about the final months of an election year. Those paying attention to “politics’ are much less than that. And finally, at that point he will be a loser and a toxic one at that.

In addition, Trump will no longer have the backing of the Republican Party. When you say “illegal immigrants are rapists” as the republican nominee for president, those supporting you can say. “What do you mean racist? Are you calling all republicans racist?” However, when you say it on the Trump channel you don’t have that kind of cover.

Still, Trump could still have millions of supporters for his next venture. Not enough to be president, but a great start for most other endeavors. His political future gets complicated because it's entwined with the future of the Republican Party. So for now, let's assume we're talking about Trump TV.
 
Not idle talk at all. Those close to Trump have started to make some of the first steps. Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon, already part of the campaign, are the kind of people you might want. Now ask me if I think it will work.

Fine, don’t ask. I’m going to tell you anyway, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

First of all, history is not on his side. The Sarah Palin Channel and Al Gore’s Current TV were failures.

Second, you need content. Even Trump can’t talk for 24 hours a day. What’s he going to do? Show prison shows over the weekend. (I made a funny about MSNBC.) Maybe he can resurrect Wayne’s World.

And finally, Trump will need cable companies to carry him. If he’s viewed as too toxic, they won’t. Glenn Beck was making Fox News a lot of money. They still dropped him.

What about TV on the Web. Sure, that’s what Glenn Beck is doing. It's called The Blase. So, tell me. When was the last time someone talked to you about what they saw on The Blase? He might as well do a blog.

Kidding aside, this could be the most likely outcome. Then again Glenn Beck's Media Empire is currently in trouble. Using him as a model we can see where this will go for Trump. At least at the start, the viewers need to have some tech savy to know how to access this kind of media. That will cut into Trump's potential viewers. This kind of business can also take a long time to take off. Beck started in 2011. The next presidential election will be starting before he makes a profit. And, the biggest problem, as the economy gets better, fewer want to watch dark conspiracy theories. In other words, his campaign. Like Trump Airlines, he'll be bucking the current trends.

What about a website? You mean like Breitbart? Sure, Bannon’s doing great with that. Wait, Bannon’s already doing that. What’s Trump going to add? A big gold T?

What about a blog? Yep. They’ll let anyone do a blog, but the pay sucks.

Now I’m way out of my depth here. Trump should, frankly, be an expert, or at least know more than me.  Maybe he can make this work. My instinct is that we’re looking at the next Trump Magazine^[5].