Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Democrats must regret changing the rules on filibustering appointees...

Many of the President's appointees must go through confirmation hearings. In fact, anyone given a title of "Secretary" or is put in charge of any department or is heading a regulatory body is in line for a hearing. Now there is obviously a chance in any confirmation that a candidate could be voted down. But largely because of the Democrat's short term thinking and probably some belief in their impenetrable blue wall, they decided it would be wise to remove the ability for a Senate Minority to filibuster a Presidential appointee.  

This gives Trump almost a free ride. 

Moreover, any chance that there might be some rogue NeverTrump Republicans in the Senate who might come out against Trump has been largely discouraged by Trump's reasonable behavior, his conservative appointees, and to a large degree the immature behavior of his detractors on the left. Who would want to associate themselves with all the whining, and recounts, and sore loser actions from the Democrats? Certainly no Republican what wants on a decent committee or wants to be reelected. 

Wouldn't the Democrats love to force Trump to nominate an entire cabinet of people who require at least eight Democrats to be on board? There would be no Jeff Sessions, there would be no Betsy DeVos, there would be no Tom Price, there would be no "controversial" conservatives.

The reality is that it's become very obvious with these particular nominations, that Trump does plan to basically "undo" as much of what President Obama tried to put into place as they can. Many of his nomination are 180 degrees from what "had" been in place. 
  • Jeff Sessions is said to want to enforce the laws. Especially laws on immigration. This works to undercut the current refusal of our Federal Government to enforce some many most any immigration laws. 
  • Betsy DeVos is all about alternative schools, and school choice. She is being steadfastly opposed by the Teachers unions and others who want to keep the status quo in place.
  • Tom Price was the Republican who actually "wrote" the main alternative to Obamacare. He quite obviously is in place to guide a "repeal and replace" of Obamacare.    
  • Both Mark Pompeo and General Flynn were critics of most everything Obama and everything Clinton. Clearly they plans to move both the Military and the CIA towards a more aggressive poster in fighting terror and international threats. This would be a large shift from the current poster of standing aside and watching. 
This quite obviously scares the shit out of the left (as well it should). The problem is that the Democrats put all of their efforts to get their left wing agenda "in place"... and put little or no effort in ensuring the success of said agenda. Implementing your agenda is not an accomplishment in and of itself. It has to be shown as successful and backed by a majority of voters, so that those voters continue to vote for people who will keep it in place. But the Democrats didn't ensure success, they didn't' garner success, and they didn't win the election.

The Democrats "could" have had many more safeguards to their agenda, had they been able to do more to control the leadership of the executive branch. As it stands, they gave up that right when they decided to alter the Senate rules to remove the ability to filibuster Cabinet appointees. Live by the sword, die by the sword.  

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

False equivalency?

Let's be clear about one thing here folks.

Yes, the President elect is suggesting that illegal voting accounted for a completely irrelevant popular vote advantage for Clinton. The concept that there is illegal voting is an opinion shared by tens of millions of Americans, including many statisticians and election observers. This opinion will continue to be common place as long as liberals insist that we need to allow millions of illegals to stream into the country, while simultaneously running your election security on what amounts to an "honor system". 

The idea that "fact checkers" demand that these allegations are "false" is about as irrelevant as Clinton's popular vote advantage. Fact checkers (who happen to be media) now rank with carnival barkers and used car salesmen in terms of credibility. 

For the record, I do believe that there is much more illegal voting than many are willing to acknowledge. We saw many people in Minnesota who were actually charged back in 2008 for illegal voting. Almost everyone universally agreed that there was more than enough illegal voting in Minnesota that year to account for Al Franken's recount victory. All that being said, I don't believe that this number is in the millions or that it would account for the popular vote difference. But we did elect Donald "exaggeration" Trump as President. Might as well get used to some hyperbole. 

On the flip side, you have the election losers raising millions of dollars to fund recounts in three states lost by over 100,000 votes.  These recounts in at least one state requires an argument to be made in front of a judge that they believe the results are based on possible (Russian) hacking and other forms of electoral fraud. Unlike the evidence that exists regarding illegal voting...  there is no such evidence, statistical or otherwise, of any hacking or fraud. But this hasn't stopped them from the suggestion (or making a case in Court). 

Again, one is a tweet. The other involves a widespread collection of people willing to donate their time and money into an effort to prove that the Russians hacked the election, and that must be the reason why Hillary Clinton lost in the three states she needed to win. Interestingly, they don't seem to take into account that Trump also won Ohio by over eight points, won Iowa comfortably, and almost won Minnesota. If there truly was hacking involved in the upper mid-west and rust belt, it apparently took place in many other states as well. 

These people are loony tunes, folks. No other way to describe them. The hypocrisy of anyone who suggests that 1000's of machines (locked away in hundreds of different locations and not connected to anything electronically) were hacked by the Russians... and then feints outrage over Trump's tweet about illegal voting is clearly playing with a deck a few cards short of 52.  

Some excerpts from the Black Lives Matter statement on Castro

We are feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. There is an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety. Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante. And there are lessons that we must revisit and heed as we pick up the mantle in changing our world, as we aspire to build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice. It is the lessons that we take from Fidel.

A final lesson is that to be a revolutionary, you must strive to live in integrity. As a Black network committed to transformation, we are particularly grateful to Fidel for holding Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for Brother Michael Finney Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill, asylum to Brother Huey P. Newton, and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era.
With Fidel’s passing there is one more lesson that stands paramount: when we are rooted in collective vision when we bind ourselves together around quests for infinite freedom of the body and the soul, we will be victorious. As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!

They say, Politics makes strange bedfellows. But who would have associated Fidel Castro with the Black Lives Matter movement. I for one, think they should become heavily involved in the Cuban situation post Fidel. Perhaps most of them could just move there? 

Monday, November 28, 2016

Trump to meet a second time with Mitt Romney...

Looks like the Trumpster is serious about the possibility of Mitt Romney as his Secretary of State. Others in the running include General Petreaus, and Bob Corker. Of the three, I think Mitt makes the most sense. Although the constant moaning of Kellyanne Conway and Newt Gingrich makes this decision a bit more difficult. 

Or perhaps it's a double burn on Mitt. One more chance to make him feel like he is in the running, only to go in another direction? I would think a decision might be coming this week. 

Trump team takes a shot across the Clinton bow...

Donald Trump took the high road when he decided that they would "not" pursue any additional criminal probes into the Clinton Email and Clinton Foundation situation. Trump stated that Hillary had been through enough and it was time for the Country to heal, move forward, and try to come together.

Time for Clinton to follow the President's lead
 (or possibly face consequences?)

There is every indication that this may "no longer" be the case. This weekend, it was suggested that while Trump would not personally push for any additional criminal probes, that he would certainly rely on the advice of a new Attorney General, if that person made the determination that such a probe was worthy.

This reversal of the reversal was tied to the discussion regarding Clinton getting involved with the recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Basically, the issue becomes this: Trump was willing to let bygones be bygones as long as the Clintons agreed to go "bye" and be "gone".  Latching on to the recounts, changes the dynamic.

Bottom line: it certainly sounds like a thinly veiled threat on the part of Trump and his team. If Clinton doesn't back off her involvement in the recounts, Trump may not back off his original calls for a special prosecutor.

Most people agree that it would be in the Country's best interest, as well as in the Clinton's best interest to take the same stance as President Obama. The President has openly stated that election was fair, it was not compromised, the results are legitimate, and it's time for everyone to work towards a smooth transition to the new Administration.

Update: Pennsylvania recounts unlikely

It also appears that a recount in Pennsylvania is unlikely. Jill Stein cannot just call for a recount and pay the fees. She must actually contest the election in Court and show the court that Election Fraud was at at least "probable".  At this point, there is absolutely no evidence of any fraud. The only suggestion of such comes from some poorly designed statistical analysis that provides some circumstantial possibility that fraud was committed. This analysis has been taken apart by people like Nate Silver and others as generally lacking any merit what-so-ever.

So given:
  • The size of the Trump victory
  • The amount of fraud that would have had to have taken place to swing the election
  • The enormous cost in recounting
  • The potential problems with the safe harbor dates for Pennsylvania's electoral college 

it would appear unlikely that Stein can show enough legal cause to garner the recount anyways.

As it stand Jill Stein is still raising money and suggesting that she is coordinating (and paying for) a voter initiated recount. This would require a petition signed (and notarized) by at least three voters in every one of around 9100 precincts. This would require about 27,300 people. Stein tweeted yesterday that she had about 1500 people who were on board. As of today, they have filed in 100 (out of 9100) precincts. (just over 1%). Another problem is that the filing dates for a voter initialed recount have come and gone in several precincts. Apparently the rest have a deadline of today. Stein has filed a lawsuit to extend the date (if there is evidence of any tampering or abnormalities in the selected precincts).

It would appear that Stein's request for this (along with her request for more funding) is likely being made in bad faith. The best she could hope for is a partial recount of the state in precincts where everything was done correctly, where there are enough volunteers, and where they actually met the filing deadline. Moreover, this would have to be completed by close of business day today. Looks as of now, that she will see just over 1% of the state recounted.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Left can't accept defeat...

Many on the left are calling for last minute recounts. Jill Stein apparently has put in a petition in Wisconsin, and is expected to do so in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Clinton team is now getting behind them as well. Let's take a look at the results of these three states:
  • Pennsylvania - Trump won by over 68,000 votes. 
  • Wisconsin - Trump won by over 27,000 vote.
  • Michigan - Trump won by over 11,000 votes.    
The only state (of these) in danger of requiring a recount was Michigan. But they have already spend the past two weeks closely canvassing in each county to make sure all ballots were counted and accounted for. In other words, they have done 90% of what might be expected in a recount, and Trump still leads by over 11,000 votes. 

These are not even the closest states of the election. New Hampshire went to Clinton by under 3000 votes and nobody is requesting a recount there. Clinton won Nevada by a similar margin as Trump won Wisconsin. This is purely an unprecedented exercise in annoyance at this point. No way can anyone actually expect to see a recount over turn what is in excess of 100K votes in these three states. The Clinton team has admitted as much. 

But if the left is proving anything. They are very very very sore losers. 

Castro Dead

Only the good die young. The really bad live till they are 90.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

A message from President Elect Donald Trump!

Trump should continue to be Trump.
Continue to be unconventional.

Many Trump supporters are aghast at the possibility that Donald Trump might pick Governor Mitt Romney for Secretary of State. After all, Romney clearly went after Trump in a very personal (and not so pleasant) manner. Kelly Conway says she has gotten much resistance from Trump loyalists and has expressed her concerns with the President elect. Newt Gingrich thinks Rudy Giuliani would be a better choice.  Mike Huckabee says appointing Trump would be an insult to those who voted for him.

I think Trump should go with his gut. He promised that he would appoint the most talented people he could find for these jobs. He never talked about loyalty, ideology, or even experience. He talked about talent and vision and people who fit in with what he is trying to do. So the only question is whether or not Mitt Romney has the sort of political instincts and talents to serve well in an administration. That is the criteria Trump set for himself. That's the criteria he should use.

I personally think Romney would be an excellent choice. I think this not in spite of, but because of the personal animosity between the two. If after sitting down with Trump for the 90 minutes or so, Trump was convinced (in spite of their history) that Romney would make a good addition, then the former Republican nominee cleared a much bigger hurdle than anyone else under consideration.

Moreover, I think it would show an amazing amount of political maturity on the part of Trump to let the past slide. In many ways, Trump would be setting a tone for the rest of the country to follow. Hey, we may not have gotten along during this campaign. We all said some things we probably shouldn't have. But now it's time to bury the hatchet and work together.

A Romney pick for Secretary of State would be unconventional, very Trump-like, and most of all... a sign of genuine leadership.  I hope he pulls the trigger.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Consumer Confidence Soars in the Polls...

Americans confident that Trump can lead us to prosperity? Certainly seems that way, as the Stock Market rises, the dollar strengthens, and consumer confidence rises to levels not seen since Bush was President. I guess some people think that Trump will "Make America Great Again"

The consumer expectations index of the survey rose by 8.4 points from October to
 85.2 - a one-month gain last exceeded in the December 2011 a testament to households'
 optimistic view on the outlook for the U.S. economy and their own pocketbooks.

Liberals use "McCarthyism" to justify their loss of power...

If you realize nothing else from this election cycle, realize that the liberal movement has fallen so low that all they appear to have left is to engage in a modern day McCarthyism. Except, rather than call people out as "communists" as McCarthy once did, the new McCarthyism is to call people out as "alt-right". The "alt-right"?

Today I read this: 
The “alt-right” is mostly a figment of the liberal media’s imagination. I have been active in the conservative movement for decades, and know hundreds, perhaps thousands, of conservatives of all stripes. Yet I had never heard of the “alt-right” until the Democrats started promoting it during the current election season.
I've made similar statements to friends and others who have asked me (as a political person) about the "alt-right". There is no real "alt-right" movement that has anything to do with what is being described. There is no secret handshake society where millions of Americans secretly bring out their white hoods, Nazi garb, and celebrate the holocaust while engaging in conversation about the inferiority of niggers and Jews. You will find almost no utterance of the phrase prior to 2016. To any degree that it was referred to by conservatives, it was in a completely different context to how it is being described by the left.

It's nothing more or less than a smear campaign designed to delegitimize the center right populist movement that has been growing (for some time) in our country. Democrats and the progressive left are losing the arguments (largely because their arguments revolve around calling people names) and the only thing they know how to do is double down. What better way to bring their bigotry and stereotyping to a whole new level, than to create a giant make believe "white supremacy movement" and try to tie the newly elected President to that group.

These are the same people who were upset that people questioned the current President's birth place. Hypocrisy, bedrock, liberalism.

Ultimately this does nothing other than sucker the gullible into believing that our incoming administration  will be nothing more than a bunch of racists and bigots (and it really won't matter who is picked to fill out the cabinet at this point). It will further divide the country between those who want to move forward with our newly elected President and newly elected Congress; and those who want to undercut the results of the election by stirring controversy, playing on emotions, and promoting more hate.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

No - it's not your Grandmother's Democratic Party

Not Your Grandmother’s Wisconsin
Up until Nov. 8, I still believed my state’s moral baseline bent toward empathy. The Wisconsin I thought I knew, where I lived for 21 years, was filled with complex but fundamentally decent people who recognized that everyone is deserving of respect and could disagree without being disagreeable. The state did elect Scott Walker as governor in 2010, and the Republican-led legislature gutted public sector unions, setting off huge protests in the Capitol. But I didn’t think that state would vote for Donald J. Trump, turning its 11 electoral votes to a Republican for the first time since 1984. (I mean, come on, we even voted for Dukakis.)
Look, many of my relatives are from Wisconsin. I live about an hour away from the border. There is little difference between Wisconsin and Minnesota (other than Wisconsin has proven itself to be a little more conservative).

The reality here isn't that the people have changed. The difference is that the Parties have changed. Rural Wisconsin (like rural Minnesota) is made up of mainly white protestant gun owners (lot's of Scandinavians). The second Sunday in May is not Mother's day, it's opening day for fishing. Similarly the only time anyone misses church is if they are out sitting in a hunting blind during hunting season. These are exactly the type of person who "cling" to their guns and religion. The exact type that many are attempting to purge from the Democratic Party.

White people who happen to be indoctrinated into the Democratic Party have issues seeing this, because they have convinced themselves that they must put up with their own priorities and needs being ignored (or openly opposed) in the name of "tolerance". But for most people, they actually care whether or not a political Party or a particular politician is willing to do something that helps them. At the very least they would like a political Party and politicians that do not simply discount them and demean them for the way they live their lives. Seriously folks, there is nothing wrong with someone who enjoys hunting and fishing and happens to be an acting Christian - in spite of what liberals will have you believe. You shouldn't have to live on welfare, shoot cops, worship Allah, dress like the opposite sex, or sneak across the border to have a say in American politics.

The people I grew up with are polite people with big hearts. They are great neighbors, great relatives, and great friends. They will put  up with a lot and sacrifice for the greater good. But there comes a time when that greater good must include their own priorities and their own needs and desire. You cannot continuously attack them as backwards and bigoted because they don't care to protest for the rights of men to dress as women and enter a women's dressing room. You eventually have to pay some attention to them, or Wisconsin (and plenty of other places) will no longer see the justification in voting Democratic.

Trump hammers sulking media...

President-elect Donald Trump met Monday with television news executives and some well-known TV journalists and repeatedly told them that the campaign reporting about him was “unfair” and “dishonest.”
Participants in the meeting at Trump Tower in New York described it as a contentious but generally respectful gathering.
But if the media elite attended in hopes of improving relations with the forthcoming Trump administration, that wasn’t quite in the cards. The president-elect specifically called out reporting by CNN and NBC that he deemed unfair, according to four people who attended the meeting, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting was off the record. (The ground rules prevented the networks from reporting the very story they were part of.)

Meanwhile, Trump has pretty much made no contact with the Washington Post (who might as well have been on the Clinton payroll) and cancelled a last minute meeting with the NY Times (who he has deemed to be unfair).

Bottom line: Trump is 100% factually correct. The media (especially the Washington Post and NY Times) were in the bag for Clinton. Martha Raddatz did become emotionally distraught when it became clear that Trump was going to win the election, and her comment about an interview with his Vice Presidential opponent was in bad taste. Did she realize that by nearly a two to one margin, members of the Military voted for Trump?

The media went all out in their attempts to make Hillary Clinton the 45th President, and that included being less than fair and impartial with Donald Trump. Trump is now the President, and the media will have to figure out a way to deal with that. In the meantime, I don't expect (nor should anyone expect) that Trump is going to bend over backwards to be nice or fair to those who were not nice or fair to him.

Keep in mind, this is not unprecedented. Barack Obama criticized FOX News over and over, and refused to be interviewed by FOX News during most of his Presidency. What's good for the goose (Obama) should be good for the gander (Trump).  In fact, to be fair, perhaps he should "only" do interviews with FOX News to make up for the past Administration.

Monday, November 21, 2016

Trump Soars in the Polls

Poll: Trump's popularity soars after election

Forty-six percent of voters now have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of the president-elect. Twelve percent have a somewhat unfavorable opinion and 34 percent have a very unfavorable opinion of him.

It’s a dramatic uptick since the election. Trump’s favorability has grown 9 points, 37 percent to 46 percent, compared to a Morning Consult poll right before the election -- while his unfavorability has dropped 15 points, from 61 percent to 46 percent.

Some of you will understand the relevance of this post and why I found the use of the word "soars" so amusing! Not only that, but this was the headline of a Yahoo story. I half expected to look at the comment thread and see JerryBrownDem and Timbuk3 making comments.

The real false equivalency

I know it’s only been a few days, but are you by chance starting to feel guilty about your vote for president?
This is the first line of an article written by Erika D. Smith where she basically calls out every Trump supporter for any and all actions (real or imagined - past, present, or future) and demands that they should be "holding themselves responsible".
You had your reasons for voting for Trump and for cherry-picking what you wanted to believe about him, based on his sketchy personal history and the divisive drivel of his campaign speeches. But by making that choice, you also have unleashed a fusillade of hate, as he goes about appointing semi-competent ideologues to egg on the racists in our midst and do all the things you thought Trump would never do.
Of course, a vote for Trump is a vote for racism and of course the "semi-competent ideologues" who will also promote bigotry and hate. (As if the alternative was any better)

So let's start  with the basic concept that much of America does not see calling Islamic Terror "Islamic" as Islamophobic. They don't see making tangible steps to prevent terrorism as Islamophobic. They don't see opposition and disgust with the protests and cop killings promoted by Black Lives Matter as racism. They don't see supporting the police as racist. They don't see wanting to slow down the dangerously high levels of illegal immigration as racism. They don't see a vote against Hillary Clinton as being sexist. They don't believe a man who's own daughter is Jewish as being anti-semetic (because the left says so).
When your child comes home from school recounting how his Latina classmate with undocumented parents left the cafeteria crying because other students were chanting “build the wall.” Or when someone spray paints a swastika and “Make America Great Again” on the side of your Jewish neighbor’s house. Or when a transgender co-worker gets attacked by men shouting “Trump” while walking home one night.
You are responsible for that, too, because you helped put Trump in the powerfully influential position of president of the United States.
This get's to the heart of the matter here folks. Look at all of these supposed events (real or imagined - past, present, or future) and how much it must really really really hurt someone's feelings. Apparently all Trump supporters should now be held responsible for any insensitive actions  (real or imagined - past, present, or future) committed by any of the 320 million Americans.

So I ask... is the left willing to take their fair "responsibility" for the actions of those who they implicitly support by political association? Are they losing sleep over the neighborhoods burned down by the protests?  Are they going to confessional every time a cop gets shot in the name of Black Lives Matters? Do they hold themselves responsible for the massive amounts of  world wide death and destruction that lays in the wake of those terrorists who kill in the name of Islam? Are they willing to take the same political responsibility for their own votes as they expect others to?

In a nutshell... what you have here is a group of obscenely politically correct nut jobs who want to attack (as being insensitive bigots) anyone willing to stand up and against violent protests, murder, and terrorism. All while simultaneously demanding that those sins committed by those you defend, be ignored, because addressing it apparently hurts someone's feelings.

So folks. You want to hold Trump voters responsible for the potential bad things that might take place under his watch? Then you must take responsibility for the bad things that "has" happened under the watch of our current President. That includes the continued rise of homegrown Islamic terror and all the innocent deaths associated with it. That also includes all of the violence promoted by Black Lives Matters, including the burning of neighborhoods, the execution of police officers, and the recent rise is violent crimes in cities across America.

When you accept the responsibility for the violence, destruction, and death promoted by that which you defend...  then you can go after Trump supporters for any insensitive behavior that might hurt feelings.  I would even let you naively pretend that one isn't any worse than the other.

Bill's appointment of Hillary to task force is precedent for Kuschner...

So the unhinged left is arguing that Donald Trump cannot name his Son-in-law as an advisor because the law prohibits it. Some (who are really unhinged) are demanding that it should lead to impeachment.

Apparently they forgot that the person Donald Trump defeated for the Presidency was appointed to lead a task force on Health Care reform by her own Husband (who was President at the time). Moreover, they apparently haven't read the relative precedents for such as appointment.
In an obscure passage in that case, stemming from President Bill Clinton's appointment of his wife to head up health care reform efforts, two federal appeals court judges opined that a federal anti-nepotism law passed in 1967 did not appear to cover appointments to the White House staff. “We doubt that Congress intended to include the White House or the Executive Office of the President” in the anti-nepotism statute, D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman wrote in the 1993 decision joined by Judge Stephen Williams. "So, for example, a President would be barred from appointing his brother as Attorney General, but perhaps not as a White House special assistant.

If we all remember correctly, Hillary Clinton did withstand legal challenges under that very law, and was allowed to hold her post as head of the Health Care Reform task force which brought us the ever-unpopular "Hillarycare" proposal that died a slow painful death.

So if Bill can appoint Hillary to a post within the Government, then certainly Trump can name his son-in-law to a post.

My guess is that the left is against the Kuschner pick for anti-semetic reasons.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Doubling down on stupid

So the Democrats, the media, and everyone in between could not convince Americans that Donald Trump was a bigot who shouldn't be President.

So they are now attempting to declare every single appointee of the President as a bigot who shouldn't be in a Presidential administration.

At some point in time, this ceases to be honest political critique and starts to become little more than slander and libel. Either way, it's become painfully obvious that the Democrats have no other real strategy right now. No honest positive message. No future thinking political philosophy. Just demands that any politician who disagrees with them must be a bigot and that anyone who dare vote against them are also bigots.

This has not been, is not now, and never will be... a winning political strategy. But when it's all you got, it forces you to double down on stupid.

Friday, November 18, 2016

The stages of grief...

Are some Democrats reaching acceptance?

As our liberal scribbler used to demand in the run up to election day: the right would feel "devastation" when Hillary Clinton was elected President. As it turned out, it was left who got to feel "devastation" when Donald Trump was elected President.

What's interesting to watch from afar is how quickly some liberals have moved through the stages of grief, and how some appear to be just getting started.

1) Denial - Quite obviously this one was certainly prevalent the night of the election, where a subdued CNN team continued to hold off calling states that others had calleed, while repeating over and over that Clinton still had an Electoral College lead. Many people went to bed, still hoping to wake up to good news. Not too terribly surprisingly, it has continued for many who demand that "Donald Trump is not my President" and it's even more prevalent with those already arguing for immediate impeachment hearings. Keith Olbermann has volunteered himself to lead the "resistance" (or perhaps it's better to suggest he is leading the denial).

2) Anger - Well some went directly to this stage. Watch Van Jones, and how close his head came to exploding on election night, when it became evident that Trump was going to win. Apparently Jones wasn't bothering with denial, and shot straight to anger. I still feel a lot of this out there, and I have a feeling it will continue to last.

3) Bargaining - This is what you see when people start to obsess about how things could have been different and how they can be different in the future. In this case, you see the left justify the loss as both out of their control (FBI, Electoral College) and as something that could have easily been prevented (better candidate, better strategy). Some still demand that it was the evil forces of racism and that somehow those 5000 estimated KKK members were the difference in the election. Either way, it's difficult for the left to imagine that Donald Trump beat their candidate straight up. So they spend lots of time coming up with a reasonable alternative (in their minds) for his win, and very simple changes they can make to turn the tide. Listening to a less smug Bill Maher pointing out very obvious, easy to change behavior that could have made a difference is a manner in which he can personally promise to behave a little better in the future, if that's what it takes to win elections again.

4) Depression - Many, especially your beautiful snowflake liberals, went straight to the Play-doh, hot chocolate, and counseling. This comes from the realization that your view of the country and the world is not necessarily shared by everyone, and the forces that disagree with you are now in control. The fact that much of what you saw as progress might be stripped away (or at least pushed to the back burner) causes issues with your own self importance. The fact that you no longer wield any power to push your views (while those you pushed against are now in control) is very hard. In fact, it can be seen as quite "devastating".

5) Acceptance - There are some within the liberal ranks who are looking to use this election as a wake up call. These people have accepted what happened, and are looking for the best way foreword. They instinctively understanding that this election was not a fluke, and they understand that having Obama at the top was masking the fact that the Democrats have been becoming the minority Party at every other level. Most importantly, they understand the need to make consequential changes to turn things around for the Party moving forward. At this point, they may come across a lot of resistance from those still in the other stages. Those who still deny that Trump won legitimately, still argue that it was a fluke, still are mad at how they believe racism stole the day, still believe that they just need to tweak an otherwise solid core, or are simply too messed up emotionally to come to terms with it.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

How wrong was Nate Silver?

Nate Silver has been given credit for basically not being Sam Wang and giving Clinton a 99% chance of winning the Presidency (Silver had it 72%). But in the grand scheme of things, Nate Silver was still dead wrong and dead wrong in a ton of places. Let's take a look:

Presidential prediction (by simulation): Clinton 302 - Trump 236
- Actual result: Trump 306 - Clinton 232
- States missed:  Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin

Senate prediction (by simulation) : Democrats 51 - GOP 49
- Actual result: GOP 51 - Democrats 48 (one undecided)
- States missed: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

Keeps missing wide left!
Now the fact was that this election had a ton of razor thin margins in both the Presidential race, and the Senate race. It's not hard to see why someone would miss several. But once again, Nate Silver managed to "only" miss races where a Republican won and he didn't expect it, now running his streak through another election cycle of "always" getting it wrong by erroneously choosing the Democrat (or Independent) to beat a Republican.

As Nate Silver would tell you, the statistical chances of him just "randomly" missing seven races and missing them all in the same direction is less than one percent. The chances of him running this streak through several election cycles is even less than that. The only explanation that makes any sense is that whatever statistical formulas being used by Mr Silver are quite obviously skewed to favor Democrats over Republicans.

Perhaps he should think about doing something about that?

Minnesota officer charged

Police officer charged in fatal shooting of Philando Castile
"No reasonable officer would have used deadly force under these circumstances," prosecutor John Choi said in announcing the three charges against officer Jeronimo Yanez.

Philando Castile’s fatal encounter last July with St. Anthony police Officer Jeronimo Yanez lasted only a minute, but quickly escalated from a “respectful and compliant” exchange to one steeped in confusion and fear.
In an extraordinary move by a Minnesota prosecutor, authorities said the officer, not the civilian, is to blame for the tragic events that turned a traffic stop in a Twin Cities suburb into a flash point in the national debate over racial profiling and police use of force.
Before Yanez, no officer had been charged in more than 150 police-involved deaths in Minnesota since 2000.

Yanez (Hispanic) is expected to plead not guilty. I believe that the prosecutor in this case may have his hands full getting twelve people to agree with the notion that he gave Yanez every benefit of the doubt and concluded that his actions were completely and unequivocally unreasonable.

This is one of those cases where many of the facts are not going to be in dispute. Both parties will stipulate to the fact that Castile was shot and killed by Yanez. Both will stipulate that Castile was carrying a gun. Both will stipulate that he had a permit.

The trouble is that this is not a black and white case of violating the law. Police officers are legally allowed to discharge their firearm under circumstances where they feel there is danger.  At the heart of the matter is the state of mind of the police officer at the time. The police officer will suggest that he felt there was imminent danger for him or possibly for others, and that his shooting was based off of this belief. The prosecutor first must disprove Yanez's suggestion he felt danger, which seems a daunting task to disprove someone's state of mind.

Using the "Hillary Clinton Standard" the prosecutor must also prove that Yanez was not only fully aware that his actions were in violation of the law, but that his actions carried "malicious intent". Otherwise, the "no reasonable officer would have shot" rhetoric... would be replaced by "no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges" rhetoric.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Hypothetical Contest Results

  • Let's say you played a game of stroke play golf. Lowest 18 hole score wins. After the game was over, it was decided that rather than stroke play, the officials would judge the winner by match play (number of holes won) instead.
  • Or you were a baseball team that was going to play seven game series. But after the series was over, it was determined by the umpire that the winner would be the team with the most overall runs, not the team who won the most games. 
  • Or you were a hockey team who was playing a hockey game. At the end of the game, the officials decided that the team that had the most shots on goal would prevail, rather than the team that scored the most goals. 

In all of these cases, it would be argued that changing the rules after the contest was over, would be unfair. Obviously these arguments would be correct. 

More to the point, in all of these cases, wouldn't the participants actually map out a different strategy? Wouldn't you play stroke play and match play differently? Wouldn't you play differently if there was a seven game series for total runs, rather than a race to four game wins? If the rules stated that the hockey teams were judged on shots on goals, rather than actual goals, clearly they may play the game differently.

Same can certainly be true for a Presidential election. If the rules state that you win the election by winning individual states (or districts) and the Electoral College Votes that come with those wins, then that is how you map out your strategy. If the rules were that the candidate who won the popular national vote, won the contest, then you would certainly use a different strategy. 

If not for the Electoral College, would candidates really spend time in places like Iowa, Nevada, or New Hampshire? Nope. Probably wouldn't spend much time in Wisconsin, Colorado, or Minnesota, either. They would likely advertise heavy in population centers, and each candidate might spend most of their time providing red meat for their own base. A Democrat spending time in deep blue areas of the country, while the Republican spending time in deep red areas. 

Now we can argue all day long about which of these scenarios actually serves a better purpose. My argument is in favor of the electoral college, just because I do believe having several competitive states with different sets of demographics keeps candidates more honest than having both candidates preach to their choir. But either way, the reality is that you cannot judge a hypothetical regarding a popular vote victory, when the rules of the contest require a strategy to win individual battleground states. 

Those were the rules. Both candidates knew those rule. Both candidates planned their strategy around those rules. The only fair way to judge the outcome of this particular contest is to see how the two candidates fared according to the rules in place. The results were simple 306-232 for Donald Trump. That's a significant victory. 

There was no other contest played. There was no strategy by either candidate to win a popular vote. Trying to create new rules that neither candidate was prepared for or either candidate worked towards is an exercise in irrelevance and red herring. Had it been a popular vote election, then both candidates would have played a different strategy and we would have had different popular vote results. But there is little reason to believe that we would have seen a different winner at the end of the day. 

The Gullible Democratic Coalition...

What has hit me in the aftermath of the 2016 election "shocker" was how much of the Democratic platform and Democratic election strategy relies on the gullibility of the average Democratic voter. If I was trying to come up with a slogan, it would be something in the basic realm of:
"the more outrageous the claim, the more likely our supporters are to believe it
Oddly, this attitude doesn't seem to change much whether these outrageous claims are being made to defend or to attack.

In defense of Hillary Clinton's many shortcomings, you could toss out almost any sort of conspiracy theory and get buy in from the Democrats.

  • Email scandal? Partisan hacks within the FBI trying to bring down Clinton. 
  • Wikileaks? Doctored documents provided by the Russians to undermine Clinton's election chances. 
  • Health Concerns? Partisan make believe doctors providing false diagnoses to harm Clinton. 

They probably still believe Hillary used a private server for convenience, several months of dizzy/fainting spells was pneumonia, and that Bill met with Lynch to discuss their grandchildren.

But the real gullibility comes with their outrageous belief that Trump and all of his supporters are pretty much closet white supremacists, antisemitic, homophones looking for an excuse to bring back Jim Crow laws, allow summary executions for Muslims, and to round up all Hispanics and put them into camps.

I read a Jamelle Bouie article just today from where he basically, openly, and unapologetically offered that "all" sixty million Trump supporters are racist bigots, even if they do not believe that they are. Jamelle then cites claims of over 300 separate acts of racial violence perpetrated by Trump supporters. The interesting thing here is that of those 300 separate acts you will not find anyone who has been arrested for said harassment or violence (although one student from Oklahoma was apparently temporarily suspended from the university for some hate speech on social media). To the degree that any fact checking was done on these allegations, it turns out that almost all of those stories were without evidence, and several were found to be fabricated. But then again, part of being gullible is not allowing the facts to get in the way of a good narrative.

Meanwhile, Bouie seems clueless to the concept that of the actual after election violence that is actually being caught on camera, proven, and in many cases people are being charged... it is all being perpetrated by Trump detractors protesting his election. Literally thousands of people protesting Donald Trump, burning down buildings, vandalizing cars, videos of brutal beatings of Trump supporters (with arrests), and even video of these anti-Trump protesters turning on the police. This is very real documented violence incited by liberal/progressive hate.

But the left would have us believe that the true post election violence and harassment comes from the right. Is gullible even a strong enough word?

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

New Poll

I endorse Keith Ellison for DNC Chair !!!

Keith Ellison, with his past association with the Muslim Brotherhood, Vice Lords, Shariff Willis, Kathleen Soliah, and Sara Jane Olson (among others) is the perfect fit for today's Democratic Party. His suggestion that the FBI conspired to kill Louis Farrakhan, will fit in nicely with the suggestion that the FBI also conspired to prevent the election of Hillary Clinton.  His antisemitism (once calling Jews the world's most racist white people) is also something that will be welcomed into the new Democratic coalition of intolerance.

A man who represents the values of the Democratic Party

Lastly, the man who has deemed himself over the years as Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison, and Keith Ellison-Muhammad and now just plain Keith Ellison will be perfect for a Party who has no clue who they are.

Sanctuary cities rebel against calls to enforce the law...

Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, and other cities are suggesting that they simply will not cooperate with any new federal attempts to increase efforts to find and deport undocumented Americans who have criminal records, or engage in criminal behavior.

You can dress this up in any manner of being inclusive,  being tolerant, or being whatever... but at the end of the day, what it boils down to is whether your law enforcement is willing to enforce the law. As has been pointed out by many, the very oaths that are taken by law enforcement in most agencies involve not only a sworn promise to upload local and state laws, but also uphold federal and constitutional laws as well.  One would think that our law enforcement agencies take these oaths seriously? If not, what other parts of their oaths do they not follow through with?

Let's be clear about something else. Enforcement of the law is not a new policy that should otherwise be debated (such as creating a new health care law like we did eight years ago). This is not up to congress, or up to anyone besides the executive branch of the Government, who has full autonomy as it pertains to enforcement. Obama choose to "not" enforce certain laws. Trump can choose "to" enforce those same laws. Those who work directly for or otherwise answer to federal law enforcement are required to follow those new rules. Certainly states and municipals can choose their own paths, but we all know that the Federal Government has means to put pressure on them.

We'll see how this all goes, and whether or not Trump will (or can) follow through on his promises to not provide any federal funding for sanctuary cities. But one has to believe that at the end of the day, if it boils down to federal funding, that the money will talk and that the political rhetoric will walk. These mayors have an obligation to take care of their constituents first. Will they allow their cities to suffer to prove their political points?

Monday, November 14, 2016

Did three million illegals really vote?

Three million votes in the U.S. presidential election were cast by illegal aliens, according to Greg Phillips of the organization. 

If true, this would mean that Donald Trump still won the contest despite widespread vote fraud and almost certainly won the popular vote. 

“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations.

Well, let's consider that perhaps three million is a little bit of an exaggeration. But let's also consider that three million is likely not much further from the truth than zero. Granted, I don't take what "" states very seriously. In fact, it doesn't appear to even be an up to date website. But hey, it was posted on Drudge, so it has to be true (ahem).

The issue is whether it's three million, one million, or three hundred thousand, I think it's naive to suggest that illegals do not cast votes in the election. Furthermore, it's something that really should be addressed in the future. This is one of those issues (Voter ID laws) that has been working it's way back up and down the courts for the past few elections seasons with a variety of results. I think one way or the other, we need to come to some national consensus to this.

In terms of reality, voter ID is simply a matter of time. It's archaic (and becomes a smaller argument everyday) to continue to suggest that millions of Americans live in this country without identification and that getting an identification amounts to some sort of undo burden. Because of this, liberals can continue to fight for as long as they can, but eventually the fact that it's 2016 (not 1816) will assure the end result. We will need to produce ID to vote.

Then perhaps we will see if voter ID laws really do effect the outcomes of elections.

Pundits who said Trump cannot win...

Already projecting a failed Presidency...

Apparently they still haven't learned their lesson here folks. Both about Donald Trump and about his supporters. But everyone would be best to remember that these critics haven't the first clue about why or how Donald Trump got elected, so they are the last people you would want to have judging his actions now. Moreover, I am guessing that most Americans will actually allow him to become President before declaring his Presidency a disaster. That will hold especially true for his supporters. (Sorry liberals).

The left promoting sexual assault on future first lady

Moreover, Presidential bluster is a longstanding tradition coming from the victors. Our current President, after all, suggested that his election would heal the planet and stop the rise of the oceans. Pretty sure guaranteeing a physical change to the planet would constitute a Presidential bravado that surpasses anything that even Donald Trump has suggested. I noticed nobody is holding Barack Obama for failing to heal the planet, or pretty much failing to personally accomplish much of anything in eight years.

Truth is that all of this is quite obviously part of the grieving process. Among those things common with those who are grieving:

  • Feels physically drained
  • Forgetful and unable to think clearly
  • Stays extremely busy to avoid thinking about his or her grief
  • Participates in harmful activities
  • Frequent sighing and crying

So there you go. Pundits on the left are physically drained and unable to think clearly. The first is likely unusual, while the second (not so much). And certainly these people grieving the Trump win will tend to stay busy, and what better way to stay busy than participating in a harmful activity? I tossed the sighing and crying in there for good measure. 

But you add it all together and you have a group of forgetful, physically drained, pundits who in spite of not thinking clearly decide (in-between their crying) to stay busy participating in harmful activities. You know, things like starting or promoting "assassinate Donald" or "rape Melania" hashtags on social media, and otherwise trying to undermine a United States election results with nonsensical attacks on the President elect (before he even becomes President).   

At the end of the day, the left is exposing themselves to who they really are, and the country is watching.... 

Sunday, November 13, 2016

More than one type of honesty...

I see liberal after liberal telling us that Donald Trump was certainly the bigger "liar" in an election that almost everyone agreed was not exactly very truthful. Playing loose and fast with the facts is what politicians do, but some really want to figure out a way to objectively quantify it, and ultimately prove that one was more "dishonest" than the other. This was evident as these same liberals started citing "fact checking" websites that told them that (by percentage) Donald Trump told more lies than Hillary Clinton.

First of all, how can you even measure? We start with the reality that not every single statement provided required "fact checking". The fact checkers were the ones who got to decide which statements warranted fact checking and which ones didn't. So the reality isn't that 70% of what Donald Trump said was a lie and 30% of what Clinton said was a lie.  Rather, it was "of the statements" that they decided to check, the amount of untruthful statements were 70% and 30%. This can be deceiving when you treat one person literally and the other figuratively. For instance Donald Trump was "fact checked" for calling Obama the "founder of ISIS" while Hillary Clinton was not "fact checked" for calling Trump a "Sergeant of Recruiting for ISIS".  In the first example fact checkers were taking a hyperbole statement literally, while in the second they understood it to be figurative.

Secondly, the fact checkers are not necessarily objective. They can see a statement that was exaggerated (possibly to draw attention) and judge it to be a "lie" for Donald Trump because they didn't care to see (or even look for) the point, but declare the same sort of an exaggeration as "mostly true" for Clinton because they understood the point she was trying to make. Other times, they simply are wrong on facts, or use one set of data to declare something false when there is competing data that show it to be true.

But either way, honestly is not just about whether or not someone else views your statement to be mostly true or mostly false. There is another type of honestly that actually is actually vastly more important than what percentage of a politicians campaign statements are declared false by fact checkers. That honestly is your ability to tell people what it is that you believe, how you feel about issues, and what is truly important to you, deep down at your very core.

My oldest son voted in his first election. He is an extremely bright young man who has been tested with a very high IQ, but also tested on the autism scale as having Asperger's syndrome. He behaves for the most part like a normal person, but he is very literal in his thinking, and very non-emotional. He's had almost zero interest in politics, it's never really been discussed, and there is literally no indoctrination of any degree in his politics. He simply wanted to do his own research in this situation and asked for nobody else's opinion (not sure he would even see the point in asking someone else's opinion).

But imagine for a second, someone walking into this particular election, with so much at stake, and not having even the slightest bias as to which Party was better, which candidate had what reputation, or anything else that clutters the minds of most people deciding who to vote for.

At the end of the day, according to what he told his Mother... he decided to vote for Donald Trump. Not necessarily because he agreed with everything he stood for, but because he felt like he understood it. Apparently the most obvious conclusion he was able to draw from his research on the two of them was that Trump appeared willing to say what he actually thought and believe, where he felt that Hillary Clinton was only saying what she thought people wanted to hear. So in his very literal mind, she offered him nothing he could judge her on. He simply didn't believe that she necessarily "meant" anything she was saying. What's truly remarkable about this is his very nature is to take things literally. To the degree that her "lack of sincerity" was apparent must be very large for my son to see it.

At the end of the day, that sort of honestly (or sincerity) is sort of what many people found refreshing about Donald Trump. The ability and willingness to say whatever it was that he wanted to say, political correctness, and political consequences damned. The fact that he exaggerated some of the facts and probably got others wrong was simply not at issue for a large number of voters. They were more interested in the intangible form of honesty that comes with being sincere, than the more tangible type that certain people were trying to keep a scorecard on.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Can the intolerant left come to grips with reality?

tol·er·ance:  the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with:

So we are just a few days removed from what was, by all accounts, the most emotional and divisive Presidential campaigns in our lifetime.  There were so many things at stake. The legacy of Barack Obama, the judicial leaning of our USSC,  whether we continued to move towards the progressive globalism that the left and the liberal establishment stood for, and ultimately who (and which lesser of two evils) would sit in the White House and represent our Country.

At the end of the day, the nation was divided by less than one half of one percent, and the Presidency was decided by razor thin margins in several states, most of which broke towards Donald Trump. Trump defied the challenges, the odds, and critics to become the 45th President of the United States.

Now we are challenged as a country to come together and show tolerance for opposing views and those who hold those opposing views. So far we are not doing so well. The intolerant left is living up to their name by holding riots, inciting more violence, attacking friends on social media, and basically viewing the results of this election and those who disagreed with them and voted differently with a open and substantial degree of contempt.

The truth here ladies and gentlemen is that you would have to be awfully tone deaf to not understand why other people with other views did not vote for your candidate (no matter which candidate you voted for). Both candidates were seriously flawed and neither (in my opinion) held the corner on qualifications.  Even if you don't understand how someone could vote for "the other candidate" we should all be able to understand the flaws of our own candidate.

The most difficult thing to do in these sorts of close elections is to accept defeat. Accept that your opinions, views, and principles did not rule the day. Accept that views you may disagree with strongly now have a vehicle to move forward from a view into a policy.

In 2016, there are a lot of tenuous policies held in place because of Presidential power. Those policies are likely dead. The legacy of Obamacare will either be repealed or die a slow painful death. Much of our open border and globalism will be reversed and replaced with tougher border security and tougher trade agreements. A path to citizenship for the twelve million illegals is likely dead for the foreseeable future. Most importantly we may see a shift in the USSC towards a more constitutional viewpoint, which will force many favored liberal social policies to win their way through legislation or referendum vs the courts.

This is a tough and bitter pill to swallow for many on the left, who saw the past eight years as not only as change, but as progress. But what these same people have to understand is that what they saw as progress, others saw as a desire of a noisy minority to fundamentally change (for the worse) the make up and values of America. They saw the past eight years as bringing us:

  • Black Lives Matters, Riots, Protests
  • Trigger warnings and accusations of subconscious racism
  • An entitlement generation (millennials) 
  • Political correctness gone amok
  • Attacks on our police forces and other traditional authority
  • Attacks on traditional Christian values 
  • Cronyism and corruption at the highest levels of government
  • An increasingly polarized country and more racial division
  • Favoritism for minorities, non-Christian religions, and even non-citizens 

And I am quite sure I am missing many others. For all practical purposes Donald Trump is seen by many many Americans as the candidate most likely to put an end to the nonsense. You may not agree that these things are nonsense or that Donald Trump can or will fix them. But you have to understand that sixty million Americans do.

Tolerance is how you treat those who have views that differ from yours and may have voted differently than you. If you truly believe you are a person of tolerance, then you have to stop the name calling, the hatred, and above all else, stop advocating or defending the violence. Otherwise, you have no business seeing yourself as tolerant.

Friday, November 11, 2016

Who do Liberals Blame for Hillary's defeat?

The Media!

There’s plenty of blame to go around for the words “President-elect Donald Trump” and the catastrophic reality behind them, but the media is high on that list thanks to its failures on Trump combined with its obsessive hyping of Hillary Clinton’s email server. When one candidate is overwhelmingly truthful and the other candidate habitually lies, but people—not just confirmed partisans but media consumers in general—come away believing the liar is more truthful and the truthful candidate is more untrustworthy, there’s a serious problem in reporting. Just a quick glance at the word clouds above shows the problem. According to the media though, one of the major victims of a Trump presidency will be … the media.  (LINK)

Several points about this:

  • Studies proved that in 588 broadcast evening newscasts (between the conventions and election) there were 623 negative statements made about Donald Trump, while there were 145 negative statements made about Clinton over the same time period. Trump endured 440 minutes of negative coverage vs 185 minutes of negative coverage on Clinton. In fact over 90% of the Trump coverage was negative.  (LINK)
  • Only one of the two candidates was actually "under two FBI investigations" for criminal wrongdoing, had a checkered past that included previous legal investigations, and was engulfed in a wikileaks scandal that proved collusion between her candidacy, the DNC, the Justice Department, and the MSM... and that was not the candidate who garnered most of the negative attention. 
  • Lastly, while the Trump team certainly ran a full throttle nasty campaign against the former Secretary, they also had some very key, simple to remember, forward thinking, messages regarding what Trump with do if he became President. The fact that there was coverage about immigration, building a wall, free trade agreements, and potential relationships with people like Vladimir Putin, was based largely on the fact that Trump talked about such things. As it pertained to policy, there was no "there" there with Clinton. It was all tired, retreated, liberal rhetoric that we have heard a thousand times. Literally nothing of substance to report on.

Truth is that I am glad that our current crop of liberals are fooling themselves into believing that this was not about policy, direction, or much of anything political at all. The more they chalk this defeat up to the media, voter suppression, the electoral college, the KKK and everything else in between... the more likely it is that they will have a poor midterm and secure a second term for Donald Trump. 

What do I tell my children?

One of the things I have heard plenty of in the aftermath of these election results, are the complaints from the left about what Donald Trump represents and how these values differ from what someone wants to teach their kids. Van Jones asked, "what do I tell my children?" (his are early grade school aged children).

I would only ask this: What did you already tell your children?

Herein lies the problem. Young children are really incapable of understanding the business of running the Government, much less understand all the nuances that go into politics, and would no ability to possibly process all of the conflicting information regarding elections. They should be taught the basics of the election process, that we should respect the results of the democracy (as a matter of fair play) and that we should respect whoever wins the White House.

If you decided to create a boogeyman in Donald Trump, and now you have to tell your children that the boogeyman won the election; well that's on you. You cannot blame democracy, America, the voters or Donald Trump for you deciding to indoctrinate this sort of hate into your family. You have only yourself to blame for the four or eight years of hate you instilled in your kids.

On a larger scale, the all out front court press to make the general public fear and hate Donald Trump is largely responsible for the protests and rioting going on right now. The intentions (of course) was to prevent him from being elected. The results (as we now know) was to further divide an already divided country by convincing us (mostly dishonestly) that Donald Trump is the second coming of Adolf Hitler.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

The election, the consequences, the aftermath..

So from what I can gather from reading my Facebook feed of the couple hundred people I have deemed as Friends, either people think Donald Trump is the savior we needed to mend a broken country, or they believe that Donald Trump is the anti-Christ and has now been given reigns to destroy our County. What I am failing to see is much of anyone who seems upset that we will be missing out on something special because we did not elect Hillary Clinton as President.

This should not come as a surprise.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, Hillary Clinton spent very little time telling us why she should be President. At least not in comparison to how much time she spent telling us why Donald Trump should not be President. More to the point, she didn't spend much time really telling us why Donald Trump's policies would not work (or why hers would work better)... but rather she spent most of her time telling us why Donald Trump and his supporters were racist, bigoted, hateful, or just downright "deplorable".

What I can tell you of the Donald Trump supporters who happen to be on my Facebook feed, none of them are racists, bigoted, hateful, or "deplorable". If they were, then they would not be my friends. I suspect that my cross section of friends is more likely indicative of being the rule, rather than the exception here.

Donald Trump tapped into something out there that those with liberal leaning political tendencies simply do not feel. The fact that liberals and Democrats do not feel it, doesn't mean it's not real. It also doesn't give these same people the right to "judge" or simply "substitute" their own assumptions about what it is that is motivating these Trump supporters. This is especially true when your assumption is that it must be racism, bigotry, hate, or something that is otherwise "deplorable".

Identity politics is a long term problem that doesn't seem to have either a short term or long term solution, other than simply having it fail, and fail consistently. For the past eight years, people who disagree with President Obama have been accused of being a racist. Opposition to his policies were usually met with cries of overt attempts to undermine the first Black President. Both John McCain (a war hero) and Mitt Romney (a Mormon) were also widely cast out by liberals as dark racists in much the same way as Donald Trump was. This may have effectively helped Barack Obama win the Presidency for two terms, but not much else.

Democrats now sit virtually powerless. They lost the White House, they failed to win back the Senate, the GOP holds a large advantages in the House. Thirty three of the fifty state Governors are Republican, and thirty one states currently have both houses controlled by Republicans. Donald Trump will appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, and quite possible replace Ruth Ginsburg, who effectively disqualified herself as a High Court Justice with her previous inflammatory political attacks on our President elect.

If Democrats have not figured out by now that you cannot win back American by calling Americans names, then they deserve to be the minority Party. They deserve to remain there until they end their reliance on identity politics, and quit waiting for older white Americans to die and be replaced by other voters more welcoming to their policies. They need to not only appeal to, but also respect, all Americans. That starts only when they stop arrogantly assuming everyone who disagrees with them must be some sort of deplorable.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016


He ran against Clinton and her billion dollar machine
He ran against a popular two term President
He ran against a unified Democratic Party
He ran against the establishment portion of his own Party
He ran against the media
He ran against the pundits

Somehow a real estate mogul and reality television star wins the Presidency

There will be a lot written about the 2016 election. The hows and the whys will be debated, and likely there will be much disagreement about what actually happened. In many ways this appears at first glance to be the culmination of a massive demographic shift of the blue collar working class voter moving from the Democratic Party to the GOP. Whether Trump is a catalyst to this or a vessel for voters is certainly a valid question. My gut tells me it was a little bit of both.

If I were a Democrat right now, I would be asking myself why the blue collar working class voter (who had been a staple to the Democratic Party for generations) is abandoning the Party, and how exactly I might be fitting into the new Democratic Party coalition of the very rich, the very poor, minorities, and liberal elitists. Because that's pretty much what is left and they really do not share many of the same values and priorities. Keeping this coalition together moving forward will likely take some work.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016


Early Exit Polls

The first number I look for is the partisan breakdown. Being reported:

37% Dem
32% Rep
31% Ind

This is going to be a smaller advantage for the Democrats than in 2012, much smaller than 2008, and quite frankly smaller than most of your pollsters were projecting for 2016.

I would also offer that quite obviously these exit polls will not include those evening voters who have yet to go to the polls. Evening voters tend to be a bit more Republican than day time voters.

At the end of the day, this actually looks pretty much in line with where I thought we might be (and nearly identical to the partisan breakdown I was using on my projection spreadsheet).

At this point we would seem to be looking at about a two point Hillary popular vote advantage, assuming the polling break down of the demographics is accurate. This would not necessarily guarantee her a electoral college win.

Florida is the key at this point. Buzz is that Clinton is feeling confident in Florida (due to an influx of Hispanic voters) - if she wins Florida, it's going to be pretty much game over for Trump. He would have to literally have to catch an inside straight flush.

Final analysis...

My first thought is that the sun will rise tomorrow regardless of who wins. There will be no nuclear holocaust, stock market crash, or wild realignment of the world order. These are two of the worst candidates we have ever seen, and probably "hope" to ever see. But this doesn't mean that our Country cannot survive the next four years.

The irony is that Clinton hasn't necessarily ran a bad campaign. She raised huge amounts of money and has huge organizational advantages. Her problem is that she's just a bad candidate with little to offer other than a history of corruption, deceit, and a lust for power. She is fortunate to be running against probably the only candidate from the Republican Party she could beat. There is little more she has to offer, that she could possibly point back to if she were to lose. For her, she is what she is. Take it or leave it.

Trump has run an up and down campaign. At times, he was self destructive. At other times, he was disciplined and on point. His history and current habit of saying politically incorrect things about women, minorities, and pretty much everyone in between has been harmful in the same way that Hillary Clinton has been harmed by her past. He is also fortunate to be running against the only candidate from the Democratic Party who he could probably beat. If he were to lose, there will be much hand wringing about "what could have been" had he not engaged in a litany of events that seem to continuously stop him from gathering momentum. Had he not engaged the gold star family, had he prepped for the first debate, etc...

At this moment in time the major consensus is that this is Hillary's race to lose. I wouldn't bet my mortgage on it, but if you stuck a gun to my head I would agree that she has to be a slight favorite right now. However, this morning you have some caveats being offered by people like Nate Silver who (like myself) see the large number of undecideds and those claiming to support Third Party candidates as an opportunity for the polling to be off by by at least a point or two. There is also an admission on the 538 blog that they will probably "miss some states" this year, suggesting a large lack of confidence in their projections. Apparently they are as uneasy as me.

Some of the conventional wisdom is puzzling to me. North Carolina is great example. This is a state that Romney won in 2012. Trump is leading slightly in the polls (according to RCP). In spite of almost no ground game, Trump is beating Romney's early voting numbers. In spite of a huge ground game, Clinton is trailing Obama early vote totals. Black vote (which is huge in North Carolina for Democrats) is significantly down in early voting. Under normal circumstances one might think that this bodes well for Trump.  Yet most everyone (including Silver and Sabato) has Clinton winning this state. I feel like I am "missing something" here. Like there is some inside information that everyone is privy to, that I just don't see.

Anyways, it's been an interesting Election season. Probably the most interesting in our lifetimes. I hope everyone enjoyed the analysis and spirited back and forth on the threads. Part of me is sad to think that as of tomorrow, this is all over (well maybe). The other part of me will be very relieved that this is "finally" over.