blueollie

Trump in the general election…

Workout notes: weights only. pull ups: 15-15-10-10, bench press: 10 x 135, 5 x 185 (strong), 10 x 170 (strong), incline press: 10 x 135. Military: 3 sets of 10 x 40 dumbbell, standing. Rows: 3 sets of 10 x 200 Hammer Machine.
rotator cuff, planks (2 x front/side/front/side), twist crunch (2 sets of 12), yoga leg lifts (2 sets of 10), moving bridge.

Final exams: more to say on my math blog.

So, we move onward versus Trump in the general.
One thing to remember: he is a Republican who attacked the Neocons on Iraq

And his answer to jobs being taken outside of the US is NOT “give them more tax breaks”:

So, there are things to like about him:

Three streams of Republicans are likely to oppose Trump: those to his right on trade and government spending; neoconservatives who oppose his “America First” noninterventionist foreign policy; and the remaining moderates and others in the party alarmed over his outbursts on, among other things, torture, immigration, race, women, Latinos, Muslims, Vladimir Putin and, lest we forget, Obama’s birthplace, Ted Cruz’s father and John McCain’s military service. These honorable and brave conservatives should not lose their nerve under pressure from conventional politicians or the very lobbyists and big donors Trump likes to denounce.

In other words, Daddy Warbucks types want their tax cuts, the warmongers want their wars, and, well, he is just too…well…tacky for the moderates.

Now the race is likely to be dishonestly reported as a “close race” and “both sides have a point” sell well with the media:

First, and least harmful, will be the urge to make the election seem closer than it is, if only because a close race makes a better story. You can already see this tendency in suggestions that the startling outcome of the fight for the Republican nomination somehow means that polls and other conventional indicators of electoral strength are meaningless.

The truth, however, is that polls have been pretty good indicators all along. Pundits who dismissed the chances of a Trump nomination did so despite, not because of, the polls, which have been showing a large Trump lead for more than eight months.

Oh, and let’s not make too much of any one poll. When many polls are taken, there are bound to be a few outliers, both because of random sampling error and the biases that can creep into survey design. If the average of recent polls shows a strong lead for one candidate — as it does right now for Mrs. Clinton — any individual poll that disagrees with that average should be taken with large helpings of salt.

A more important vice in political coverage, which we’ve seen all too often in previous elections — but will be far more damaging if it happens this time — is false equivalence.

You might think that this would be impossible on substantive policy issues, where the asymmetry between the candidates is almost ridiculously obvious. To take the most striking comparison, Mr. Trump has proposed huge tax cuts with no plausible offsetting spending cuts, yet has also promised to pay down U.S. debt; meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has proposed modest spending increases paid for by specific tax hikes.

That is, one candidate is engaged in wildly irresponsible fantasy while the other is being quite careful with her numbers. But beware of news analyses that, in the name of “balance,” downplay this contrast. […]

I’ve already seen pundits suggest that both presumptive nominees fight dirty, that both have taken the “low road” in their campaigns. For the record, Mr. Trump has impugned his rivals’ manhood, called them liars and suggested that Ted Cruz’s father was associated with J.F.K.’s killer. On her side, Mrs. Clinton has suggested that Bernie Sanders hasn’t done his homework on some policy issues. These things are not the same.

Now many were surprised that Trump did as well as he did. What happened to the “data based punditry”? Basically, the nerds refused to believe what their data was telling them; it was too counterintuitive.

Speaking of dishonesty: becoming desperate brings out the worst in a campaign. For example, the Sanders campaign is pointing out that in 2008, many superdelegates switched from Clinton to Obama. That is true, but only a few switched while the race was still on; the vast majority switched after Clinton conceded.

May 7, 2016 - Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social, weight training | , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: