How to get Voters, the Gadfly Way

Using What We Know About Voters to Build a Coalition

Now that we've figured out the mindset of voters in The Good, the Bad and and Delusional, we can talk about how politicians win elections. (You didn't read it. Will go read it now. I'll wait).

You still didn't read OK fine. Here's a quick summary.

• Delusionals. Those who support the candidate no matter what
• Partisans. Those that support the candidate's party no matter what
• Pragmatist. Those supporting a candidate because he shares their goal.
• Idealist. Those supporting a candidate because he shares their ideals.

If you get confused now, then go back a read the darn link.

The Coalition Begins

What this all means is that for a president to win, he has to get more than just "natural followers" to vote for him. That translates to a run-of-the-mill calculus. Different people have different needs (both physical and psychological), and the candidate wins by aligning what he offers with those different needs. We call this his coalition. (You can also reverse this by disrupting and demotivating your opponents coalition, but we'll get into that later.)

Mindset tend to form before the election or during the primary. Otherwise, if they do change during an election, it will happen at pivotal moments. There are exceptions, but it's usually happens like this.

• Party and Anti-Candidate Delusionals formed before the election started.
• Pro-Candidates Delusionals form during the primaries, or on first impressions (conventions, debates, etc.) if they weren't following the primaries.
• Partisans form before the election but can change to Partisan-Pragmatics during primaries, and in extreme cases after.
• Partisan-Pragmatists mostly come before the election and during the primaries, but some wait until after. They also come and go throughout the election.
• True Pragmatics form before the election and usually stay that way. But of course, their vote can change throughout.
• Most Idealist were formed before the election, but the origin of their idealism often began during a previous election. They almost never change during an election, but their vote do come and go.

After the primaries, a candidate start with a fixed number of Delusionals and Partisans, about 40% of the electorate. They both come from the same pool of voters, so the candidates biggest effect is what percentage are Delusionals. Of course candidate want as many Delusonals, they can get. Despite, their problems, their reliability and energy make them more than worth it, especially if you can control them.

Fortunately, you can also get some ready made Delusionals from your party. Rush Limbaugh works hard recruiting Delusionals for republican nominees. (Democrats have recruiters too. They're just haven't been as good since the 60s).

You get your Partisans from your party. That's why, if you want to be President, you have to do it as a democrat or republican. You also got some Partisan-Pragmatists this way, and this account for most of the fluxuation around the 40%.

But, 40% won't get you the presidency. Now you have to get some of those Idealists and remaining Pragmatist, and keep the Partisan-Pragmatists and Idealist you already got.

You actually got most of your Idealists along with your Partisans, but don't think of them that way. Unlike Partisans, you can lose them in a heartbeat. Fortunately, you can get the back just as quick. You just have to promise what they want. The problem is that what they want often no one else does (or at least not as much)

Pragmatists can also come and go, and True Pragmatist are the only group you can pull from your other candidate. The good news is that Pragmatists are reasonable and willing to compromise, so, if you're smart, you can keep them happy without alienating everyone else.

Once you have your coalition, you have to keep them happy. Except for True Pragmatists, they won't vote for the other candidate, but they will stay home, vote for a third party, and not help you with other voters.

Keeping Your Coalition Well Fed

While only True Pragmatists switch votes, much of your coalition will stay home if you don't keep them happy. So, the candidate does need to keep working at that. As I already mentions, The Great Delusion of Politics makes the different parts of a coalition think they don't need the each other, so the candidate can't always rely on them to help. So, let's talk about how the mindsets interact.

Delusionals, Partisans, and Partisan-Pragmatist usually get along with each other. After all their on the same side. When they don't, Partisans often become the mediator. It should not surprise to you that most politicians, especially presidential candidates, are Partisans.

Since Partisan-Pragmatist are willing to compromise, they usually aren't much trouble, but their problem is that they don't always agree with each other. A candidate can find himself compromising with one group of Partisan-Pragmatists only to lose another group. If ignored, Partisan-Pragmatists are also smart enough to let and election slip to make the Partisans pay attention.

Delusionals can bigger problem. If the Delusional is Pro-Candidate, instead of Party or Anti-Candidate, they can push issues that the others don't want. But worst, Delusionals can say crazy things that Partisans and Partisan-Pragmatists know will hurt their chances, not only in the current election but future ones. There is a jiu-jitsu, here, that the other candidate can use. They can push Delusionals into showing their craziness and damage their coalition. If the rest of the coalition had their way, they'd ship all the Delusionals to a deserted island and bring them back on election day.

Idealists are a mixed blessing. They can shrink the coalition, pushing unpopular ideas or, worst, insisting on party purity. But, they're not all bad. They are great replacement for Delusionals, giving the same energy with less of, the craziness. The other candidate can use a similar jiu-jitsu as they do with Delusionals, bringing up issues that make Idealist take unpopular stances, they can force a coalition to make difficult choices. This is so common there's a name for it, "wedge issues".

True Pragmatist, as you can imagine, can work well with everyone or stay to themselves. However, too much conflict either within a coalition or between them can drive True Pragmatists away.

As, you may have noticed, most coalition forming happened before the election began or during the primaries. That too is an involved topic which demands another post. It's also one better to go into after the election.

What About the Issues

I'm sure you've noticed (and are probably mad about it). I have not talked at all about the issues. (In truth, I've barely talked about them throughout the election).

So, do I think they matter. Of course they matter. That's exactly what Pragmatists and Idealist are thinking about. Issues are the language that mindsets hear. I'm just trying to describe voters from a "more eagle eye view". By focusing on the mindset, we see what it takes to change voters minds on the issues and the candidates.

This is also why issues don't come up as much during elections, and probably always will be. Here's a lesson for you activist. If you want elections to be more issue driven, focus on how mindset formed before the election. If the election starts with more Pragmatists and Idealists than Partisans and Delusionals, it will be the issues we talk about.

The Winning Strategy

So, now candidates have to do a mixture of 5 strategies to win:

1. keep their coalition happy
2. remind your coalition the other candidate will make them unhappy,
3. make the other candidate's coalition unhappy
4. win over True Pragmatists.
5. make the other candidate unacceptable to True Pragmatists.

Whenever you hear a politician talk about an issues, you have decide which of the 4 strategies he's using and which of the 4 mindsets, he's talking to.

In another post, I'll go into how this works out in the 2016 elections.

Election 2016 Update 09-30

State of the Election 2016

Hey, did you know there was a debate Monday?

OK, the news is starting to move away from the debate, which I can tell because the googles are getting mixed news. However, looking at the headlines of different papers there still is some discussion.

What the headlines did show is the Machado story. There is a little titillation here, which can drive a story past it's due.

Post Post Debate Talk

Yes, I probably owe you a full(er) analysis of the debate, and I'm working on. However, first I'd still like to give more time for the polls to settle. (Remember the real debate is not just what happened Monday, but throughout the week).

More importantly, there proved a lot of background posts I needed to.

Before I can tell you how the debate will affect voting, I need to explain how I believe Trump and Clinton gets votes.

Before I can tell you how Trump and Clinton gets votes, I need to explain how I believe candidates get votes in general.

Before I can tell you how candidates gets votes, I have to explain how I think the electorate votes in general. I just did so in The Good, the Bad and the Delusional.

And I still have at least 4 more reasons No One Should Vote for Trump, many of which he displayed in the debate.

I did warn you there was going to be a deluge.

Whew. I'm already tired.

Hopefully, I can do a Post Post Debate Monday.

The Good, the Bad, and the Delusional

The Great Delusion of Politics

... is that everyone thinks like my friends. They don't. All the people we know and interact with only represent a minority, ALWAYS. The presidents that win understand that. The ones that don't, lose.

Bill Clinton understood that when "he felt your pain".
George H.W. Bush said the economy was doing just fine.

George W. Bush talked about "compassionate conservatism" and welcomed Hispanics.
Al Gore talked about climate change.

Barrack Obama talked about hope and changed.
John McCain wanted to double down on the Iraq War.

and Mitt Romney let slip about his 47%, the greatest example of the Great Delusion you can see.

I'm being way over simplistic, but you can see the point. The president that can frame himself to appeal to the most people wins the election (duh), and that means appealing to more than just your "base" (not duh).

You can get away with the Great Delusion somewhat when your a governor, senator, congressman, etc. because you only have to convince a geographic niche. But the larger you govern, the less "delusional" you can be. This is a reason why business man can have trouble being politicians. If I can sell a product to 2,000,000, I'm a millionaire. If I get 2,000,000 votes running for president, I'm not even a footnote. Name a businessman that has sold a product to half of the country. Name one that has sold to half of a state.^[1]

This is where, I believe, I'm able to get more political insight than most. I'm weird. I know I'm weird, and I have been weird for a long time. In other words, I've had to deal with my own Great Delusion for a while.

So, I bring this up now, because in all of my previous posts, I have not explained how I think people actually vote. And, without me explaining this, you won't really understand why I make the poll predictions I do. Well, let's fix that now.

Different Kinds of Voters

To escape your Great Delusion, you have to have some idea about how different people vote. Most break the electorate into demographic groups: party, race, religion, income, gender, education, and religion. Instead, I found it simpler to break the electorate into mindsets: Delusionals, Partisans, Pragmatists, and Idealists.

Delusionals
If you prefer you can use a less pejorative word, 'inspired', but I'm going to use 'delusional' because in a way it's more accurate. These are voters that are so much for their candidate (or party) no fact or argument can persuade them. All faults are excused even if the voter must go to a delusional point in accepting them.

Within this group are also the ant-candidate Delusions. These have a mindset where the other candidate (or party) is so unacceptable, not argument can persuade them not vote against them.

Needless to say, Delusionals will only vote for the candidate and always vote.

Partisans
Partisans are less delusional, but still willfully excuse their candidate faults, because they are committed to their team (as in party or political organization). They don't care that their candidate is worse than the other because they are just as concerned about control of the rest of government: Senate, Supreme Court, and Congress. They are also motivated by the future of their team, and thinking as much to the next election.

However, Partisans are not blind to their candidates faults, they're just willing to overlook them. If a candidate is too flawed, they will stop supporting them. Partisans only vote for their candidate, but can be persuaded not to vote at all if their candidate is bad enough.

Pragmatist
Pragmatist want the better candidate regardless of their party. They don't expect a candidate to be perfect, and try to judge both on equal terms. You can describe them as 'independents' and that is often how they describe themselves, but most of the time that is not what happens in practice. You see, the problem is that we all define 'better' differently.  But, at least, in theory they will vote for the other party. So, we should think of the mindset one of two types:

Partisan-Pragmatist
While these Pragmatists are open to voting for either party, because of their values and ideas they effectively vote as Partisans. If you believe 'better' is to have smaller government, you are always going to vote for a Republican, and you will always vote Democrat if you believe in social program. However, in mindset, you are open to the other side, so there are ways to get you to switch or at least not vote.

Don't be confused by party allegiances. Many voters that look Partisan are actually Partisan-Pragmatists. Evangelicals and some minorities are good examples. This mindset votes strategically, not out of loyalty. What party affiliation they have is because of their needs at the time.

For example, a voter could be so concerned about an orange, small handed demagogue, that he starts, what looks like a partisan, blog. And as for the other candidate, he suspiciously never mentions her or her flaws. That's just hypothetical of course. We don't know anyone like that.

True Pragmatist
Here we really do have voters looking only at the best candidate. They usually have needs that neither party deals with adequately, or are just truly impartial. This is the closest to what you know as 'independent voters'. The classic Soccer Mom, is a good example of this.

There is a kind of in between Partisan and True Pragmatist. Some needs are addressed by one party but others are addressed by the other party. Another way, is where both parties are willing to address the need (though often using different strategies). These are treated as True Pragmatists, because they are open to switching. They just lean towards one party more than the other.

Both Pragmatist types realize Third Parties can't win, so would see a such a vote as "throwing it away". However, they might for emotional or strategic reason. In strategic cases, it would be because the Third Party is promoting an issue they want a major party to adopt. In the emotional case, this is just a substitute for not voting

A common exception are strong third party supporters, such as Libertarians. What going on here is that they really have sentiments to the Third Party, but knowing Third Parties have less influence, they participate in one of two major ones. However, if not satisfied with the candidate, then voting their sentiments makes strategic and emotional sense.

Both tend to be consistent voters because they believe in the importance of voting, but if the stakes of the election are low enough they can stay home.

Idealist
Idealist have this crazy idea that they should vote for the candidate that most represents their views regardless of their chances of winning. Unlike the Pragmatist, they don't vote strategically at all. Most are affiliated with a party but only because the party has adopted their (or at least one of them strongly). They also can be "single issue" voters.

Idealist don't switch between the major two unless both parties can meet there ideals, but will often vote third party or not vote out of protest.

What You Need to Know

Now, that you've heard the unique (as in weird) way I think of voters, here are some finer point that need to be cleared up.

First, at any point in our lives you and I could be a Delusional, Partisan, Pragmatist, or Idealist.

Second, as you can see, only True Pragmatist will switch sides, which means candidates have to change a voter's mindset before they can change their vote. This is incredibly hard, however. Mindset change more from life experience and the constant debates that happen between elections. As you can image, there is a lot to this, so I go over how mindsets form and, in loving detail, in the next post.

Third, while mindsets are hard to change, they can be motivated or unmotivated. Campaign are often much more about affecting who votes, then who they vote for. Just as importantly, voters affect how other voters vote (Say that three times fast). Motivated voters argue for you. Unmotivated ones don't, regardless of their mindset.

So, exactly how can Delusionals and Partisans be unmotivated. Given their conviction, why would they ever not vote. We have to think of willingness to keep an opinion and effort differently. Convincing a Delusional to admit their candidate is bad, or a Partisan to admit their party is wrong is practically impossible. However, if they lose faith, they could abandon their candidate or party. Then maybe they would switch mindset, but more likely they would just wait until the next election.

Fourth, different mindset have a way of alienating each other, so part of a candidates problem is keeping them together. The other candidate can also try and get his to fight.

Fifth, forget about Third Parties (sorry). They serve other roles, but in deciding elections, all they do is pull Idealists and angry Partisans from the candidate. The exception here are lower level candidates. The less powerful the office, the more likely a Third Party can win, so voting mindset have to consider this possibility.

How does the Great Delusion Apply?

Well, since you asked, one of the problem is that all these groups don't think they need the other.

A great example of this was after the 2012 elections. the Republican Party (Partisans) had figured out that they lost, and would keep losing if they kept insulting Hispanics (Pragmatists). Unfortunately, almost immediately Rush Limbaugh went to convince his Delusionals this was not true. After all, if Republicans got enough Hispanic support, they may not need him and his Delusionals. If the Republican Party had been able to solve this, there would be no Donald Trump.

Another interesting outcome, is that we like to think we're Pragmatists or Idealist, when we're actually a Delusionals or Partisans. For example, a blogger could be so scared of an orange, small handed demagogue, that he tries to sell himself as a Pragmatist, when he's actually quite delusional. Again, this is just hypothetical.

To escape your own Great Delusion, you have to first be honest with yourself as to what you actually are. (Though if your a Delusional you probably can't. Because, well, you're delusional). You then have to learn to recognize who everyone else is in your party, and the other. Then, remember that they to are under their own Great Delusion, but if your empathetic enough you can now talk to them without throwing food.

Oh, and before you think I'm being too hard on the Delusionals, remember you have probably been one, and I know I have. You or I might be one now.

I'll cover how coalitions form in the next post.

Election 2016 Update 09-29

State of the Election 2016

Trump in the News

Last night, Trump both continued to insist that he won the debate and claimed he was right about Machado. However, the morning google is pushing out other stories. If you read, yesterday you know what either could mean. Stay tuned.

Clinton in the News

The bad news is that the morning google was negative.

The good news is that she is pulling ahead in the average of polls to +3 which suggests the debate is turning into a bounce. However, Trumps polls have moved up to, just not as much. This could be more a situation where both their polls go up because each side is interpreting the debate as a win. However, this goes better for Clinton, because she tends to increase more than Trump in these situations.

Prepare for the Deluge

There still a lot I want to get out before we reach the final stretch, so prepare get swamped with posts over the next week or so.

7th and 8th Reason No One Should Vote for Trump and Counting...

The Conspiratorial and Reckless Trump

To add to our list of 5 Reasons and 6th Reason No One Should Vote for Trump.

7^th Reason: He has a Conspiratorial Mind

Do I even need to prove it to you? Trump constantly talks about conspiracies. He began his political career pushing a conspiracy. I counted at least two in the 1st debate.

How bad this is, depends on what we don't know. Does he believes these conspiracies, or does he just think they make good politics. I see evidence to both sides. During the debate, he constantly denied his conspiratorial statements of the past, so at least he knows what the rest of us think. That suggests that on some level he is aware and does not believe.

However, if you pay attention to how he speaks, you can see a conspiratorial mindset. For example, instead of saying "illegal immigrants come from Mexico", he says "Mexico is intentionally sending illegal immigrants". Also, there is his reflective responses to use conspiracies as excuses for his failures. Needless to say, if he's taking these conspiracies at all seriously, that shows dangerous lack of judgment. The biggest foreign policy failure in my lifetime, the Iraq War, happened because the president could not tell a conspiracy theory from the truth.

But his judgment does not come off better if these are all just ploys. Conspiracies are horrible political investments. As I showed in the "6th Reason", they're likely to be disproven and label you as a nut bag. They have little political benefit. You can lose more votes than you gain.

We are tempted to laugh this off, but this is scary stuff folks. I mean hitlerish scary.

In Trump is Not Hitler Yet, I kept from declaring Trump a threat to our democracy, for only one reason, I don't believe his followers are fanatics. However, if he wins that means a large part of the electorate accepts his fictional universe. That can be the 'Yet'. With such a large number accepting anything he makes up, Trump could excuse any behavior or push any agenda. Here are examples of what can happen, when a politician can sell any story: Internment Camps, the Red Scare, the Gulf of Tonkin, and, yes even, the Iraq War.

8^th Reason: He Speaks Recklessly

Again, do I need to show that he speak recklessly? But, have you thought about what that means. There are those that blame all the problems in the Middle East because Obama said "red line". If you think that's at all accurate, imagine what would Trump could do?

Normally, I can give some leeway here. George W. Bush made a lot of gaffs, but he knew that what he said could have weight. Do you really think, President Trump can maintain even that amount of discipline for four years. He's not been able to go two weeks, without causing a controversy.

Now, I know that many like how he speaks from the cuff. I can appreciate that too. Heck, I even speak recklessly sometimes, but that's a reason (one of many) I shouldn't be president. When you're President, everyone hears what you say and takes it seriously. Always.

Here's a likely scenario. Trump casually makes an ultimatum like"I'll blow the crap out of them" or something like that. At first, a ripple of tension goes throughout the world. Depending on when he spoke an international crisis could develop. Now, we know Trump refuses to apologize or admit he's wrong, so there's a real danger of escalation here. However, maybe people around him are able to calm everyone down, and we move on. The world has learned not to take President Trump's threat seriously.

Then North Korean detonates another nuclear test. Iranians start building a new reactor. Putin invades another country. Each time, President Trump makes a threat. Everyone just laughs in response.

You tell me what happens next.

Election 2016 Update 09-28

State of the Election 2016

Post Debate

You should never assume the winner of a debate, until a week after the debate. Winning is not appearing to be the winner, its how it helped or hurt you politically. And, after a debate politicians do know how to turn a week into a lose.

If you doubt that, note that we are still talking about who won 2 days afterwards. Trump is trying to spin a win, and Clinton is trying to capitalize on the win. That this is how the candidates are responding means even Trump's own supporters realize he lost. But, if he is successful in his spin, he can keep the polls from shifting too much. That's why I'm being conservative on how much the polls will change.

There is a trap for him, however. (Fingers crossed). The longer Trump talks the more he can lose. If he is still defending his debate performance next week, he's making it worse. Normally, I would not even consider a candidate doing this, but it is Trump.

Alicia Machado

So, Clinton points out horrible comments made by Trump about a Miss Universe winner, Alicia Machado, about 10 years ago. I haven't heard of her. Almost, no ones heard of her. Trump barely remembers her. No big deal right.

Then Trump next morning calls her fat. This is the kind of reaction that has most hurt him in the past, when he goes after a non-politician. Think Judge Curiel and the Khan family. If he goes any further, he could end his chances before the 2nd debate. (Shh, don't tell him.)

What I find most encouraging is that Machado is responding on Spanish television. Lately, Hispanic support needs to be shored up for Clinton, and this could do it. (Why they need more reason to run to the polls and vote against Trump, I can't figure out).

Election 2016 Update 09-27

State of the Election 2016

Now I'd like to take the opportunity discuss the International Monetary Fund.

Naw, I'm going to talk about the debate of course.

Before I go into the candidates, How did I do? Looking at 1st Ttrump vs Clinton Debate, the truth is not very well. They only asked 2 of the 3 questions I listed, and while the email server was brought up, the foundations were not. In the 2 questions they did bring up, both candidates acted more retrained, so did not go as far as I expected. I also missed a lot of topics, I shouldn't have.

More importantly, I was way off on the drinking game. If you listened to me, you have a lot of liquor left over.

So, how did the candidates do.

Trump

1. Not lose his temper -> Not good
2. Not bully Clinton too much -> Not good
3. Keep moderate republicans comfortable with him -> Not good
4. Appeal more to woman -> Not good

Clinton

1. Not come off as cold or condescending -> Pretty good
2. Answer questions about emails (drink) quickly -> Great
3. Get Trump to lose his temper -> Pretty good
4. Motivate African Americans, Hispanic, and younger voters -> OK
5. Keep moderate republicans and woman uncomfortable with Trump -> OK

So, Clinton did well, and Trump did not. I won't say it was a complete game changer, but Trump fell well short of his "There you go again moment."

Before, we go into our happy dance, there's a strange way how voters see these debates differently, partly on how well the campaign spin happens afterwards. Before, I would dare predict the outcome, we need these questions answered.

Did everyone see this in split screen?

This is a big deal. Most of Trump's "lack of temperament" occurred while Clinton was speaking, so those without a split screen would see Trump better.

Who saw the whole debate?

Trump's debate weakened about 40 minutes in, so if most only watch the first 30 minutes, they saw Trump at his strongest. Even at that time, he looked to me as if he was slowly losing his temper, but that's me.

What's with the sniffling?

Trump made audible sniffling which I suspect was a tick of his trying to contain his temper. (I do something similar). Regardless, it was distracting and made him look agitated. Sure, to be in the next SNL skit.

The Bottom Line

This was good night for Clinton, and could be bad for Trump. The question is how bad. I don't see Trump gaining in the polls and he may go down. More likely, he stays where he is and continues to stay. (Before tonight he was moving to a tie. Now Clinton stays ahead).

This is where the previous questions come in. A viewer that did not see a split screen (or listened on the radio), stopped watching halfway through, and has any leaning for Trump could convince themselves he won.

As for the sniffling, be sure to watch SNL this week.

Election 2016 Update 09-26

State of the Election 2016

We have the debates tonight, and that's all anyone is talking about. So, there's not much more to say. However, I've already prepared a lot for you to read over the weekend if you haven't already.

First, her are some video clips I made to read Trump's body language.

Second, here's my pre-debate analysis.

And finally, what I have new. I started a page of the crazy ideas I keep having for better politics. Here's one on how to do better debates.

And most important, here is an updated list for the drinking game.

1.  I’m the and order president
2. America great, again
3. I finished it
4. Hillary started it
5. racist
6. Alt Right
7. temperamentally unfit
8. bigot
9. deplorable
10. failed policies
11. Crooked Hillary
12. foundation
13. Benghazi
14. America First
15. Stronger Together (new)
16. bigly or big league (new)

See, tomorrow. I'm sure I'll have a lot to write about then.

The 1st Trump vs Clinton Debate

This Time It’s Armageddon

So now, begins the event, we’ve been waiting for all this election, the 1^st debate. I already discussed the scaredy Trump face, so you have some body language to observe, but I have not discussed the debate in general. So, here’s my take.

Do Debates Matter?

There is actually some questions among political scientists as to whether debates affect elections. The short answer is that, usually the polls do not shift much and settle back to where they were before. Effectively debates, produce a bounce like the conventions. A good example of this was the 1^st Romney vs Obama debate. Obama’s poor performance was believed to revitalize Romney’s chances after the 47% discovery. (I refuse to call that a gaff because I believe it was more substantive than that, but that’s another post). In the end, it didn’t. Polls settled back to as before. Now, of course you could point out that the debate undid Romney’s previous decline and note there were 2 more debates. But, you can see why political scientists disagree. However, the fact is that in most past elections the polls eventually went back to where they were.

The debate we know mattered was Reagan vs Carter. We remember Reagan for what most would consider 8 years as successful president. (The average of historians rank him around 16^th which ironically is the same as Obama). However, before that he was a very controversial figure, even by the standards of today. If you haven’t heard it, here was his take back then of medicare,

Carter on the other hand was ending a very unpopular term with economic troubles and the Iranian hostage crisis. You could say any warm body could have beaten him. Bur, Reagan was crazy. I just showed you the clip. And, remember that media was much more limited than today, giving only this debate for Reagan to rebuttal. Carter was able to keep even in the polls and might have been re-elected, but Reagan was able to undo that with one line: “There you go again”.

And then Reagan became president.
This debate is lining up under similar dynamics. We have a strongly unpopular democratic candidate (though not as bad as Carter) and a “crazy” republican candidate (though way more crazy than Reagan). Perhaps Trump can pull off his own “there you go again” moment. However, in this media environment, you’d have to have had your head under a Rush Limbaugh blanket to not have heard Trump’s craziness. Plus, they’ll be two more debates, There was only one between Reagan and Carter.

So, Just How is This Going to Go

In the first debate, I predict Trump and Clinton will have a thoughtful discussion of the issues where Trump shows his knowledge of current events and constantly compliments Clinton. (Yeah, I couldn’t keep a straight face as I wrote it).

So, what can we really expect at the debate? I haven’t a friggin clue. However, I know what is the most important reason to watch in the debate, the drinking game. So, as my contribution, I will designate my suggested words by following it with (drink).
But, here’s what they need to do in this order.

Trump

1. Not lose his temper
   
2. Not bully Clinton too much
   
3. Keep moderate republicans comfortable with him
   
4. Appeal more to woman
   

Clinton

1. Not come off as cold or condescending
   
2. Answer questions about emails (drink) quickly
   
3. Get Trump to lose his temper
   
4. Motivate African Americans, Hispanic, and younger voters
   
5. Keep moderate republicans and woman uncomfortable with Trump
   

The theme of the debate is “America’s Direction”, whatever the heck that means. However, I think it will not matter because instead, the moderator will focus on what he believes are the question the audience is most curious.

What is your response to the events in Charlotte and Tulsa?
Trump: We need more police (profiling, “stop and frisk”, etc.). He may also say “I’m the and order president” (drink) and “We need to make America great, again” (drink). In other words, let’s go back to the 1950s.

Clinton: How bad it is. Police cameras need to be released to the public. Perhaps she will go as far as to criticize NC new laws, and propose some kind of federal standard or oversight. In other words, African Americans please don’t stay home; Trump wants to bring back segregation and Jim Crow laws.

Mr. Trump please explain your recent change on Bitherism?
Trump: “I finished it” (drink). “Hillary started it” (drink). In other words, moderate republicans and women please don’t hate me.

Clinton: He or his supporters are racist (drink) and the alt right (drink). In other words, moderate republicans and woman, you should hate him. If she is smart, she claims this makes him temperamentally unfit (drink). This is also a perfect opportunity for a one liner.

Trump: You’re the bigot (drink) and you call everyone ‘deplorable’ (drink). Your failed policies (drink) shows you don’t care about African Americans. In other words, hate Hilary, not me; she hates you.

Secretary Clinton please explain your private email (drink) server?
Clinton: ?. But please make it short.

Trump: This proves Crooked Hillary (drink) cannot be trusted, and her foundation (drink) is the largest pay-for-play setup in history. In other words, you can’t trust Clinton.

Clinton: What about your foundation (drink), Trump? Never used your own money. Bribed a DA. Used to pay legal fees. And let’s not forget, bought a football and a 6 foot painting of yourself. In other words, maybe you don’t trust me, but you can’t trust him either.

Though the Trump and Clinton Foundations my come up in a separate question.

And then a whole butch of boring stuff about the economy, health care, and maybe some foreign policy (but I believe they’ll save that for later debates). However, we will be all too drunk to care.

So what other drinking words did I forget? How about: "Benghazi" and "America first".

Whatever you choose, please don’t use these for your drinking game. You’ll get alcohol poisoning.

• Believe me.
  
• Give me a break
  
• I’m telling you
  
• You tell me

However, if he once says “I have a very good brain”, let’s all just chug until we’re too drunk to remember the rest of the night.

Scaredy Trump Face

Theses are the Body Language Tells I Observed During the Commander-In-Chief Forum

As mentioned previously, I found some body language that indicates when Trump is scared and lying, so I clipped some video for you to see. If you can, watch them with and without the sound. Obviously, they are from the Commander-in-Chief forum aired September 7th 2016.

How to Detect Scaredy Trump Face

Mostly look at his eyes as they try to widen and squint at the same time. This is by far the biggest indication. He also speaks slightly faster, but that can be hard to hear because he normally speaks fast. In addition, he constantly glances away. When Trump is comfortable he tends to lean towards who he is talking. Again this can be hard to see because Trump moves his head a lot.

The first video is when he was asked "What's next?" if we successfully remove ISIS from Iraq. This is also where he said we should have taken the oil. His response is laden with fear at the idea of actually having to answer factually.

Note that his questioner is not responding well, which is probably why Trump is being thrown off. I also suspect this make Trump look through the crowd for approval from someone else.

He also shows the same behavior when asked about his "secret ISIS plan". Note how Trump looks startled when Matt Lauer first says the work "ISIS".

Finally, the most important one. The 'tells' are harder to see, but this is him answering if he is prepared to be president. The biggest tell is just before Trump speaks If I'm reading his body language correctly, he's not just scared to answer the question, he is scared to actually be president. Consider what that means.

How to Detect Lyin Trump Face

So how can you tell Trump is lying. Obviously, his lips are moving. (Que old joke groan).

Trump shows classic lying ques. First he tends to quickly glance up to his right when describing a memory. The theory is that he is engaging his left brain to construct fake memory rather than recalling a real one.

More telling is for a split second he smiles. You have to pay attention to see it, especially since he does similar facial expression. But, this is the most reliable 'tell'.

I this one, he is doing his most classic lie, "I was against the Iraq War". He shows the 'tell' on the word "was" in the sentences. "To hear Hillary says I WAS not against the war". 

In this case, the 'tells' are harder to see, but it is worth watching because it;s when he is talking about his intelligence briefing and shows him trying to construct a lie in the moment. You will see him make a strong glance up to his right on the word "what" in the phrase "WHAT our experts".

Now Trump could be the most blatantly liar in American history. He certainly is in my lifetime. You would be right to ask why bother when we only need to see if he is breathing.

Sure, but what we don't know is if he realizes he is lying. If I'm reading the body language correctly, at some level he does.

Let finish by stating I am only a rank amateur at reading body language, so take what I say with that in mind. Trump is a very emotive speaker, so I could easily be making "false positives." I leave you to judge.

I also have to point out the everyone looks bad under this kind of analysis. However, Trump often relies upon an image of invincibility to trick and manipulate. Anything that pierces that is worthwhile. Again, I leave you to judge.

Election 2016 Update 09-23

State of the Election 2016

Charlotte, NC and Tulsa, OK

Thankfully, while the protests in Charlotte where large, they were largely peaceful. Hopefully, the calming will continue, and I will use it as permission to go a little into the politics. Since Charlotte and Tulsa are politically the same issue, I will treat them as one.

First, the news is becoming "silo'd", meaning in some news source you only hear about this, while in others, there is almost no mention. In politics, this is significant because it means different audiences, in other words voters, are being affected by the new.

Considering that the news is now silo'd and fading, the political impact would be waning. However, it turns out that NC is a critical state. In most projected scenarios, Trump must win NC, and while he is currently ahead, it is only slightly. If Clinton can take this away, it's game over for Trump.

NC also has a large black population.

On top of that Trump's reflexive response had been to suggest profiling, stop and frisk, and suggesting drug use is the problem. All of these can be viewed as what would exasperate the situation by many (including myself).

Now 'many' is not 'all', but I think I'm safe in assuming that if you are black, you are likely part of the 'many'.

Considering this is an election year, Clinton has only made the minimal response. Partly this is due to the events themselves drowning out any attention, and what is left is taken by Trump. But it is also partly due to Clinton being more focused on the upcoming debate, than "in the moment" political maneuvering. I don't think, however, it is not a question of whether but when she confronts Trump on this, probably during the debate or at least later.

NY/NJ Bombings

This news is being pushed out, and I suspect has "cycled out". So, I will take to opportunity to talk about terrorism and the election. I already pointed out that the assumption that terrorist events helps Trump is not necessarily true. In the Brussels Bombing he had actually hurt himself. Here was the effect of the Orlando nightclub shooting on June 12th. Again, lets look at Real Clear Politics.

What you should see is that Trump AND Clinton where helped. More significantly, this is the only time both Trump and Clinton went up in the polls at the same time.

If you think about this, it makes sense. At this time Trump supporters are likely to seek strength, while Clinton supporters would seek calm and steadiness. What was different from before is that Trump did not erratically respond, but instead, focused on stopping immigration as the solution. Note that after the NY/NJ Bombings, he made the same response.

Election 2016 Update 09-22

State of the Election 2016

I realize I have been a bit dire in my last posts, so let me interject some levity before I start:

I have also found a recent discover about Trump. Many are saying Trump is controlled by the Mob.

Riots in Charlotte

It's been a tough few days. The riots in Charlotte are continuing to grow, and as you should know by now, I don't like to do political speculation on such subjects, so I'll make this quick. Trump started rather good, making a heartfelt speech with real empathy. But, now he's suggested profiling and started blaming drugs, attitudes that probably got us here in the first place. Clinton has so far been silent.

The Debate

Telling is that most of the punditry is speculating on how the debates will play out. I have never heard so much talk this soon. Debates rarely change the race, though in the midst we think they do, so maybe that will be the case here. However, most of us are seeing it as Armageddon. (I'll admit, I've had to watch a lot of cat videos to sleep lately).

Clinton has been quietly preparing, the reason why we only hear Trump speaking about the riots in Charlotte.

Many are Saying... Trump is a Shopolholic

Trump's Secret Addiction has made Him Part of the Mob

Many are saying Trump is controlled by the Mob. As with most stories about how someone falls prey to organized crime, his is common. It all began because of Trump’s addiction.

Trump does not smoke, nor does he drink. He seems a man free of vice. Well, except for flaunting his wealth, boasting, lying, infidelity, cheating, bullying, whining, and the desire to sleep with his daughter. But, apparently no addictions. That is until now.

Donald J. Trump is a shopaholic.

Apparently, decades of a lifestyle defined by expensive and high-quality purchases has drawn Trump to the forbidden fruit of the cheap, tacky, and tawdry. During his marriage troubles with Ivana, he secretly purchased $125 million dollars of beer hats. Then as financial troubles hit first in 1991, Trump reacted by buying $50 million dollars worth of backscratchers. This, of course, exasperated his money troubles, led to more bankruptcies, and his family had to step in.

In order to hide their shame, they had to secretly get rid of this stuff. Before they had been able to hide his illicit purchases in the cement foundations of construction sites, but the failures in their real estate business had closed that option. They had to get more creative. First, they pulped the backscratchers into paper, which became The Art of the Deal books, and re-purposed the plastic of the beer hats into pieces for the Trump the Game.

However, just as the Trump family was getting out of their financial troubles, Donald bought $350 million dollars worth of novelty ties and $175 million dollars worth of Old Spice. At that point, they considered going public about their father’s problem, but he had just gotten the contract for The Apprentice. They desperately needed the income and could not risk what the bad publicity might do.

Then Ivanka found a factory in China that could secretly bleach the ties and re-die them. They could then sell the ties as high fashion using their father’s recent rise in fame. In the same way, they were able to re-bottle the Old Spice as Trump Vodka. (Reportedly, Ivanka is still thankful no one actually drank that stuff).

That’s when they discovered that if they put Trump’s name on anything they could sell it. Even if they didn’t make money, they could turn his wasteful expenditures into tax deductions. “I’m with Stupid” t-shirts and sweat shirts were changed to “Trump University” clothing. The 10,000 cases of MD 20/20 became “Trump Wine”. And his warehouse of taxidermy became “Trump Steaks”. (Again, Ivanka is thankful no one ate those). As I demonstrated in Trump Is Broke, as long as they could continue to present Donald Trump as rich, successful, and in his own way classy, they would be able to keep the family solvent. However, this creates a perpetual dilemma. If his shopping addiction is ever discovered, the Trump name becomes tarnished, and the family is ruined.

The Trump family was now, more than before, a prisoner of their father’s addiction, forcing them to constantly cover for his escapades. For example, when Donald Trump snuck off to Hawaii to buy $15 million dollars worth of Hawaiian shirts, they covered by claiming he went to find Obama’s birth certificate. (Then, of course, they turned those into Trump dress shirts).

Then in a single night, Trump found a way to make his biggest purchase yet: $613 million dollars of bobble heads, garden gnomes, velvet Elvis paintings, Star Trek commemorative plates, Justin Bieber lunch boxes, plastic flamingo lawn ornaments, and anything with Scott Baio’s face on it. It was all too much.

So, they did what people do when out of money, keeping a shameful secret, and desperate enough to seek any option. They contacted the Mob. (They ran a construction company in New York during the 70s. Of course, they know people in the Mob).

Donald Trump had a long time mobster friend, Goldy Digits, who shared his sensitively about having small hands and an obsession with decorating everything with gold. Goldy, of course, knew how to get rid of something you did not want to be found. He gave instructions to create land fills and cover them with grass. And so, was created the first Trump golf course. The pink flamingos did prove a problem because they would poke out of the grass, but fortunately, the velvet Elvis paintings have proved a sturdy tarp. Until now, none have been made the wiser, though there have been rumors of garden gnomes being found on the greens.

Of course, the Trump family had to do their part. The Trump Foundation became a way to launder Mob money, and they had to purchase the Miss Universe Pageant to use for an international smuggling ring.

All was going well, until Trump mysteriously obtained $267 million dollars of hand-clapping baseball caps, “I don’t do mornings” coffee cups, and rubber chickens. Trying to figure out how to get rid of theses, they suddenly realized the one time you can give away tacky items in a prestigious way: a presidential campaign.

Baseball caps were converted to “Make America Great Again” caps, and they were off. Still short on funds, they used Trump's celebrity to avoid needing a lot of money up front until Goldy could embezzle from campaign donations. Goldy also thought he could shake down other politicians threatening to keep Donald in the race if they didn’t pay up. Unfortunately, no politicians buckled finding the threat of Trump getting the nomination ridiculous.

Then he won the nomination.

They were not worried about getting discovered through the Republican Convention. After all, Scott Baio and many of the other guests will play ball owing their entire fortune to Trump’s shopping addiction but afterward was another story. What would happen if Trump had to show his tax returns? Worse, what if he actually became president.

For now Goldy has been in able to keep Trump behaving with the threat that what happened to JFK could happen to him. (Of course, the Mob had nothing to do with the JFK assassination, but since Trump believes any conspiracy theory, Goldy’s ploy worked.) However, all know they’ll be able to control Trump for four years. In the meantime, Trump Jr. has stepped up making outrageous claims to keep his father from becoming president. (Skittles was actually Melania’s idea).

They did have the forethought, however, to promise the Wall, which is really intended to keep Trump from buying cheap souvenirs from Mexico. However, none are unaware of the danger they are in.

And, they still have not figured out what to do with the rubber chickens.

Election 2016 Update 09-21

State of the Election 2016

Again today, the "real" news is more important than political speculation. I felt it was more important to focus on How Soon We Forget. Please read instead.

How Soon We Forget

Now is Just Not that Bad

4,000 California Army National Guardsmen patrolled the city to enforce the law

I'd like you now to look up two relatively obscure movies, Gung Ho (1986) and Dutch (1991). If you can, watch them. If not, at least read their plots on Wikipedia. I'll wait.

I hope you noticed. Gung Ho was about losing American jobs to globalism. A significant turning point in Dutch is when they meet a family in a homeless shelter. Note that the family in Dutch were not aberrations, and the father had a good job. They lost their home due to the 1990's Recession caused by the shift to a Post Cold War economy.

Note the dates.

Gung Ho was during the Reagan Administration that is so often invoked with the glow of nostalgia as a time of plenty and growth. Long before NAFTA. Long before Trump uttered the words "because of China". During Reagan's first term, unemployment had reach 10%, and was the first time most Americans ever heard the word 'recession', mostly so we could avoid saying 'depression'. As Reagan took office, Chrysler was being bailed out, and he over saw the bail out of Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co. This remains the "most significant bank failure resolution in the history of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,". Is any of this sounding familiar?

By his second term, there was constant anxiety of jobs being lost to Japan, as the country was coming into its own economic boom. (Why do I feel deja vu?)

During the time of Dutch, the H. W. Bush Administration, there was a banking crisis caused by lack of regulation. Later, a recession hit causing a rash of home loses, leading to the first time since the Great Depression a large number of middle class families became homeless.

And during all this time, we were dealing with a real concern that the world could be destroyed in nuclear war.

For many of you, this is history, but for at least half of us, this is memory.

Yes, 9/11 was the biggest foreign attack of my lifetime. And yes, the Great Recession was the biggest economic threat of my lifetime. But, look at where we were are now, compared to where we went to in the past. We have learned from the past.

Today our biggest threat is terrorism, before it was nuclear annihilation. Today we have growing difficulties in getting ahead, before it was homelessness.

I write this now, because this morning, Sept 21st 2016, there was a riot is Charlotte, N.C. Fortunately none were seriously hurt. This weekend, we had a terrorist attack. Fortunately none were killed. Please remember that more than 60 died in the L.A. Riots of 1992. In 1995, 168 died in the Oklahoma City Bombing.

At this point, I would apologize for minimizing other's suffering and pain. But I'm not. We are in an environment were too many have political and economic incentive to maximize and excite. Minimizing is what we need. Calming is what we need.

And what I find most frustrating, Trump and many of his supporters are more than old enough to remember when time were worse. Still, they want us to believe these times the worst. And I really can't count them alone. There are forerunners of Trump stoking the flames through radio, TV, and the internet. Again, many of them are old enough to remember. Many of them were part of those problem. They want us to imagine exaggerated fears that were realities of the past and peddle a past free of fear.

Ironically, in my lifetime, there is only one threat different and beyond those like him: Donald J. Trump.

Election 2016 Update 09-20

State of the Election 2016

Bombings in NY and NJ

The bombings have now become political. (That didn't take long.) I still feel, however, it too soon to speculate, so I won't.

Is the Bounce Here

I mentioned previously that there was a predictable bounce in the polls, where Trump pulls even and then Clinton pulls ahead. Also, predictable Clinton's leads in the NBC news polls. We had just started recently talking about bitherism.

However, it's too soon to see if this is a true bounce, because Trump didn't pull even first. Note that polls are now measuring "likely" voters as oppose to registered voters. That could change the trend lines.

In Other Words...

This is just a big "wait and see" day, so you should just take a break from the election and catch up on Netflix.

Trump is Broke

Trump is the Kardashian of Money

Kim Kardashian became famous by convincing everyone she was famous. Trump became rich convincing everyone he is rich.

Once you understand that, the rest is obvious. Trumps marketing strategy for much of his life has been selling his success. It’s a common business strategy. We instinctively imitate the people we want to be, which marketers figured out a long time ago. Rock stars sell records because we think their cool, and we want to be cool. Models sell clothes and perfume because their attractive, and we want to be attractive. And yes, you can also sell success this way.

Trump has always flaunted his success, but you can definitely say he started selling his success in 1987 when he published Art of the Deal. Note that his first bankruptcy was 1991, only four years later. From, then on there are more real estate bankruptcies, but there are also new business based primarily on the idea that Trump is a rich and successful business man, such as The Apprentice and Trump Vodka. In other words, as Trump was failing in the traditional family business of real estate, he shifted to the business of selling the Trump brand of wealth and success.

(I’m getting all of this from Wikipedia, so rather than pepper this post with a lot of footnotes you can just look there).

Now Trump's business is primarily licensing his name.

From here, we see why he is most sensitive when others suggest he is worth less than he says. For once, it might not be ego, but business necessity. This is also, the reasons there is so much discrepancy on how much he is worth. Much of the Trump wealth is based on the value of his intellectual property, the Trump name, which is subjective.

But a more interesting and bigger problem is that we don’t know how much he is in debt. How much you are worth is not how much you have. It’s how much you have minus how much you owe. Trump has never released that information. He could be in so much debt his net worth is zero.

Trump got himself into a sweet position. He is able to sell his name because people believes he is rich, even if he is not. This means even if he his broke, as long as he can borrow enough to keep people believing he is rich, he still gets to make money. Pretty sweet huh. What could go wrong?

Well, you could run for president.

Look, I don’t know that he is broke, but I do know this. If he is no where as rich as he claims, he will never release his tax returns. He will be broke if he does.

However, for us, there is a serious outcome. If Trump completes the election never releasing his tax returns, then we will never see another politician's tax returns again. The Trump candidacy could already be harming democracy.

So, I say this. Maybe he is a rich as he claims. But until we see his tax returns, we should treat him as if he is broke.

Election 2016 Update 09-19

State of the Election 2016

Terrorist Attacks Over the Weekend

As you have probably heard, there were 2 bombs and one knife attack this weekend that are suspected to be acts of terrorism.

My sincere belief is that we should hold off speculation on such matters until there is enough time to digest the facts. So, that's what I'll do.

Let me just say my gratitude that no one was killed and my empathy to those who were harmed and traumatized.

So How Do Terrorist Attacks Affect the Campaign?

In order to keep distance from current events, I will refer back to the Brussels Bombings on March 22.

The conventional wisdom is that terrorist events will help Trump. This is the issue Trump is running on, which usually means when it enters the news, it should help him. But not necessarily. An issue in the abstract has different politics than when it is actually occurring. In other words, Trump has to show he knows something.

If you look at the polling average around that time:

You see that this is the the largest point Clinton as so far gotten, 50.4, and the 2nd lowest of Trump's, 39. This is also the time he said "I have a very good brain" and that Obama "knew something". In other words, he reacted badly making him look less able to handle a crisis. So, the question is how discipline Trump is.

For, Clinton, this is where her recent pneumonia could hurt her. Her acting calm and thoughtful could be interpreted as her drained by the stress.

Do not be confused by standard troupes. "Clinton refused to call it Islamic terrorism". "Trump was too quick to assume it was terrorism" (unless it actually wasn't). These are arguments that only those who have already made up the mind respond to.

The real determination will be if Trump acts to erratic or Clinton acts too political. Otherwise, there could be no effect at all.

6th Reason No One Should Vote for Trump, and Counting....

Yes, We are Finally Talking About the Birther Nonsense

To add to our list of 5 Reasons No One Should Vote for Trump.

6^th Reason: He is a Bad Investor

Trump claims to be a great business man, but in the sense of being a good investor, his dalliance with birther nonsense disproves that.

Here’s what I mean. Let’s forget the racist implications for now (not that it’s not there) and focus on this as a business investment. Say I offered you $10,000, but if President Obama produces his birth certificate you have to give me a $100,000. That’s exactly how a good investor would look at this.

Now only a bad investor would ever take that deal. Odds are you would lose. When Trump publicly demanded President Obama’s birth certificate, he risked time, money, his reputation, and, yes, even his business. If the President ever does show his birth certificate, Trump is humiliated, looks like a buffoon, and would be suspected as having a questionable grasp on reality. The best outcome is Trump is proven as a crass opportunist and potential con man. The worst is that he is so discredited no one wants to ever listen or invest in him again. Whatever 15 minutes of publicity he would get could not be worth that risk.

I mean what was his backup plan? Demand to see his college transcripts? (Oh, wait.)

The only way you would see that as a good investment is if you honestly believed President Obama could not produce his birth certificate. I will not waste time explaining why that is really, really, and I mean really stupid. If you object to that, leave a comment and I will, very slowly, explain why.

Now if you doubt that analysis, then note that’s what actually happened.

One phenomenally stupid investment could be an aberration, but you see the same problem in other statements and proposals. For example, here’s what happens if we look at “taking Iraq’s oil” as an investment”.

Benefit: We gain resources and keep them from terrorist.

Cost and Risk:

• We definitely would have to commit troops indefinitely. 
• Our troops will be in harms ways and subject to terrorist attack 
• Terrorist will be confirmed in their argument “that it was always about oil’ and emboldened. 
• It will spur international criticism 
• Alliances would be endangered, especially those in the Middle East. 
• Countries with oil or reliant on middle eastern oil would be agitated. This means more attempts to gain nuclear weapons and makes other wars more likely

You can see, a bad investment.

So, now I encourage you to start looking at other proposals Trump makes as investments, and I bet you will start seeing the same disturbing trend.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to examine his business practices to better confirmed this trend. The problem is, besides my lack of skill, I need more details, than you can normally get, to assess what the risks were against the potential benefits. The other problem was he made so many other glaring mistake, I could not untangle them from his inability to assess risk. (Like starting an over-priced airline when the clear trend was that people wanted cheaper flights).

However, Warren Buffet does agree with me. During a Notre Dame lecture in 1991, Buffet described Trump’s real-estate failures as just paying more than the properties were worth. ^[1]

Now I know you are asking, how could he be a bad investor and such a good business man. Well, first I’m not convinced he is a good business man, but that’s another post. Second, there are other ways to make money and other reasons to start a business. But, there is another concerning way you can be a bad investor and still get rich. Only invest with other peoples money.

If you can get bank loans and others investors without using your own money, you can put yourself in the good old “heads I win, tails you lose” position. Doing this you can be a bad investor if you are a good enough salesman, and Trump is clearly a good salesman.

For example, you might get banks to loan you tons of money to open casinos, but make sure you can use bankruptcy laws to protect your own money. You might even brag about it. Ever hear of that happening?

This should really make you squirm, because in the scenario of Trump becoming president, we are the banks.

Election 2016 Update 09-16

State of the Election 2016

Trump in the News

We are finally talking about birtherism. Trump is trying to deflect this by claiming Clinton started it. The details of this get complicated, but I believe I'm safe in calling this "mostly false". You can see all the details here.

What is really going (whether Trump realizes or not) is that Trump is setting up a 'retort'. You've probably been in an argument with someone, where they argued back with a nonsensical response (at least nonsensical to you). However, that the argument was nonsensical doesn't matter. In their mind they had a response, so the argument ends in a draw.

The only way to get past such and en passe is if there is a third party.

So, when Trump is attacked with his Birther past, he makes the false claim that Clinton started it. The evidence has been debunk, but even debunked evidence is enough for his supporters. Clinton supporters of course will see this as nonsense and think worse of Trump (if that's possible). Therefore, an issue that was damaging to Trump becomes a kind of draw, to be decided by 'independents'. However, if you are an 'independent', you're soon sick of this and just want to stay out of it. Again, making it a draw. Note that I gave the same analysis on Clinton's "basket of deplorable" scandal.

Though, there was some damage. There was an 'opportunity cost'. When we could have been talking about two policies he just proposed, a new tax plan and paid leave for women, we are talking about his birther past. Potentially, this could also take back some gains he made in trying to show him as non-bigoted.

If I were Clinton, I would forget the racist aspect of this and focus on the nuttiest. The question should now be "did you ever believe Obama was born outside the country?". Anyone that would ever believe such a nutty conspiracy theory is 'temperamentally unfit to be president'. If he says he never believed, he's a con man. If he does, he's nuts.

I have a coming blog that points why this is another reason no one should vote for him, beyond the obvious.

If you haven't read it yet, I would also point out that many are saying Trump was born in Russia.

Clinton in the News

We're talking about Trump now, so hopefully she will have a nice weekend.

Election 2016 Update 09-15

State of the Election 2016

Health Records

OK, He got me. First I wrote that he was showing his medical records on Dr. Oz. Then, he said he wasn't, and I corrected the 09-14 post. Then he did.

Clinton then released her health records like a normal person.

Morning Google

Morning 'Trump' google was him being push off the podium by the pastor of a church. For 'Clinton' a rebuttal against Trump's accusations towards her foundation. For 'Trump vs Clinton', his recent growth in the polls.

There have been some recent reporting on the Trump Foundation that suggest improprieties and conflicts of interest, if he became president. The morning 'google' though suggest that this story is not drawing much attention. The problem is that because Clinton was in government, there were more laws and ethics the Clinton Foundation could break. The Trump Foundation would have to break tax law or commit out an out bribery to push the same investigations.

The biggest effect is that reporters are starting to believe they have been to hard on Clinton and too easy on Trump. Arguments are growing that they shouldn't try to be balance anymore and scrutinize Trump relentlessly. (Go press).

Poll Panic

Trump's recent rise have started to bring anxiety. I am even feeling it, and I predicted it. However, remember the polls reflect days, weeks, or even a month in the past, so these reflect Clinton's bad weekend.

The morning google suggests that negative press is moving back towards Trump, and this could push them down again.

My bigger concern is that so far Trump has only been punished by his "self inflicted wounds", and only then, by his most egregious. He seems to have recently shown more restraint and act more conventional, and he might be able to slide by with a "benefit of low expectations". If so, even proven corruption and bad debating might make no difference.

One potential way Clinton could fight this is to rightfully play the "women's card". Many women know what it's like to have every mistake of theirs count against them, while the chest thumping guy is always excused. This is definitely how she is being treated. Reminding this could keep Trump from gaining his most needed demographic.

Election 2016 Update 09-14

State of the Election 2016

Before I get into the ugliness of the news, I'd like to continue an ongoing meme and show you my favorite "Basket of Adorables" from Karen Tumulty.

OK, enough of that.

Trump in the News

So now that you know my process, I can tell you that the 'Trump' google came up with an article about donors and Paul Ryan. The story was soon pushed out by others, but the main point is that it was not "basket of deplorables' despite Trump's attempts to keep it in the new.

This is attack is now problematic because of Pence's refusal to call David Duke a deplorable.

I made reference to this in the 09-12 update. The "basket of deplorables" argument now has the problem of making us all ask about just what number of supporters are deplorable, and questions Trump not calling them that.

However, this tactic only works when confronted by a Clinton surrogate or interviewer willing to ask. Trump and Pence can bring this up in rallies and commercials with no fear. This now becomes only a way to "rally the base" and build enthusiams, for both sides. For Trump, this is the opportunity to draw in traditional republican voters that are uncomfortable with him. For Clinton, this is a way to bring enthusiasm when she has a problem making her voters entusiastic.

There is also the beginning of an investion into the Trump Foundation by the NY AG, but it's too early to tell if this goes anywhere.

Oh and Trump made a childcare policy speech. Like this would happen? Though, if Trump gets elected, the country will be run by Ivanka, while he plays golf, so maybe.

Clinton in the News

Guess what? Clinton's still sick. The talk now has moved from her lack of transparency (which only reporters care about) to how much medial information presidential candidates should disclose.

Both candidates have said they will release more medical records. Here's the catch. Trump is going to do it on the Dr. Oz show. And, as of this morning, the campaign has stated, his recent test results will not be released.

Now, I'm going to indulge into a little fun speculation. I wonder if Trump can release real medical records. He may have none. Doctor shopping would not be out of Trump's character, and he may have only seen doctors telling him what he wanted to hear. In other words, this guy could really be his doctor.

Dr. Harold Bornstein

Many are Saying... Trump was Born in Russia

Many people are saying Donald Trump was born in Russia. When the Guardian asked him to release his birth certificate, he refused. This spawned further investigation which uncovered evidence that Trump is not a native born American.

In truth, he was born to poor Georgian farmers. However, it was part of the Soviet Union, so the birth certificate was filed in Moscow. Realizing he was born with hands too small for farming, they knew they would starve if they kept him, and he would not survive in the country because of his strangely orange hair. There was a long running superstition that small hands and orange hair came from the devil, and they feared angry villagers would kill him.

So, they bribed a corrupt official that had contacts in the U.S.

Fred Trump realized early on that his oldest son, Fred Jr., had too much good in his soul to take over the family business, so he sought another son who would share his killer instinct. Trump Senior also believed in the Georgian superstition and reached out to the contacts he had made in the U.S.S.R.

Hearing of Juri (Donald's birth name, pronounced 'Yuri'), the boy was taken into the Trump household, treated as family and named Donald Juri Trump. The nature of his birth was kept secret since Cold War fears were on the rise.

To further the secret, Donald was required to die his hair black. Donald kept this up until his father past and then he let it go to its natural orange. Having to live with such a s secret has taken other tolls. For instance, he obsessively asks for the birth certificate of those that get close to him in fear they may also be a Soviet plant.

This proved a mistake because Putin remembered the stories of the strange orange haired, small handed boy, and made the connection. Putin contacted him and told Donald he would keep his secret, only if he would run for president, and if successful do his bidding. In order, for Putin to know that Trump is still in his control, Donald must regularly and publicly complement Putin to confirm his allegiance.

Trump has been doing all he can to not be elected, hoping that Putin will let him go, having no further use for him.

Unfortunately, Putin has been very successful in covering up any remaining evidence, but not before it got onto the internet. This is why we must demand Donald J. Trump's birth certificate and have it examined to ensure it is not a forgery.

Election 2016 Update 09-13

State of the Election 2016

Since most most of the news today is a rehash of yesterday, I'm going to take to opportunity to cover some background.

How Do I Get Updated

My start is to just google the word "Trump", then "Clinton", then "Trump vs Clinton", only looking at what the first headline that comes up. This gives me a scene at what people on most interested that day.

I then check to polls. You should not follow a single poll or try to judge as each poll comes out. Instead, you should look for poll averages. That way biases, different methods, and outliers get averaged out. Usually, I look at Real Clear Politics. And then I take a quick look at the projections at FiveThirtyEight. I;m not looking at these to see who is winning or losing. I'm doing so, to see what effect different news story have had.

After that, I just listen to the news throughout the day. I'll, also, get into the art of listening to the news later. I work in front of a computer all day and need to listen to something while I work. The news repeats itself so much, I can tell what they are talking about by the tone of their voice.

If what I'm hearing starts to sound to bias, I'll switch quickly to a source with exactly the opposite politics. I'm not so much looking to hear the different argument as much as to whether they are talkng about it at all.

How the Polls are looking

On 09-08, I said the polls should go to "+2% Clinton lead". (I actually described this as a 'guess'). Let me go into a little more detail on that. First I neglected to include a "bounce", meaning the polls will go closer, and Trump may even get ahead for a day, but then the polls bounce up towards an average of +2% Clinton. Note this chart from Real Clear Politics.

You should note the diamond patterns. Clinton and Trump move closer and then break away, the "bounce". Before election day, regardless of how they acted before, polls historically move to the "natural" state of only a difference of 1 to 3%. So +2% for Clinton is just me following history.

There's obviously a lot more to this, but I'll have to go into that later.