blueollie

“You need to shut up and listen to me” rarely works…

I am frequently more critical of liberals because, well, that is who I tend to hang around. I am sure that there is a “shut up and listen to me”, “shut up and read the Bible..at least the parts I want you to read” ethic among conservatives too but I am in a position in life where it is rarely directed toward me.

But you see it quite a bit in liberal circles: if we see someone as potentially marginalized and not listened to, be they a racial minority, female, gay, non-cis-gendered, and recently..a teenager, we are told to “check our privilege” (whatever that means) and listen to them..often in an uncritical way. And in certain circles (say, in certain circles on certain college campuses), people get used to that.

So when they go outside of their small circles and face, gasp, criticism and critique when they were expecting a captive audience, well, some feeeeeelings can get hurt!

Yes, one could always accomplish something and get to the point where people actually WANT to listen to what you have to say…but that requires hard work and patience and maybe a bit of talent.

2016 election and Hillary Clinton Yeah, I know the election is long over and Trump won because of the way the Electoral College is set up. And yeah, given the Democratic field and Trump, had I to do it over again, I *still* would have voted for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. I still think that she was vastly more qualified than either.

But, well, I kept much of this to myself for a long time, but her public persona is just not likable (I’ve heard that she is likable in person).

Yes, I find her intelligent and logical:

Note: this video was posted by right wing idiots who completely missed the point that she was making. Frankly, I found her argument to be correct and on point, but for the morons who made this clip, I suppose it was “TL;DR”. And millions and millions of such morons vote (on both sides). Someone like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton knows how to get at least a few of those votes.

And yes, there things I didn’t like her either. For one: unlike Bill and Barack, she did not get to her political position under her own steam; had she not been married to Bill, she would have certainly been a super successful professional but not a politician. IMHO, that just isn’t her; I could see her as a judge, professor, CEO, or perhaps a cabinet member (she did well as Secretary of State). But a “rallier of the masses” she isn’t.

And, for some reason, her public self critiques appear to be excuse making:

Robby Mook, the drained and deflated campaign manager, told his boss she was going to lose. She didn’t seem all that surprised.

“I knew it. I knew this would happen to me,” she said, now within a couple of inches of Mr. Mook’s ashen face. “They were never going to let me be president.”

Oh, for f**ks sake! Barack Obama won as a black man!!! “THEY”? “LET ME”??? I sure hope this is something that really wasn’t said..but I fear that it was.

And yes, yes, yes, Trump is a disaster…engages in self-pity far, far more, etc. I see no alternate universe in which I support Donald J. Trump.

But at times, HRC makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

Advertisements

April 21, 2018 Posted by | 2016, hillary clinton, political/social, social/political | Leave a comment

Amateur hour: not appropriate for high level politics OR the national media

This article talks about the pitfalls of politics becoming amateur hour. Not everyone has the talent for it..and someone having a platform that I agree with does not mean that they’ll get any action on said platform.

There is a difference between the ideal and what is attainable.

Media: this headline is misleading; Hillary Clinton did not “shield” this guy:

A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.

Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, a co-founder of the American Values Network, and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.

He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide, according to three people close to Correct the Record’s management.

In other words, Hillary Clinton tried a less strident, less draconian approach and attempted to reform. And she is getting creamed for it!

Sigh… You can make a credible argument that she *should* have fired him, but it isn’t as if she looked the other way.

Personal As I finished my power walk, a lose German shepherd saw me and followed me for about 1/2 a mile…like I was walking it without a leash. I was afraid that someone might think that I was being irresponsible!

Workout notes: 5K walk after a decent weight workout:

Usual PT
pull ups: 5 sets of 10
bench: 10 x 135, 4 x 190, 8 x 175
incline: 10 x 135
military: dumbbell: 10 x 50, 10 x 50 (standing), 10 x 180 machine
rows: 2 sets of 10 x 50 dumbbell, 10 x 110 machine
10 goblet squats (to the sill) with 53
24 (each side, 48 total) twist crunches
moving bridge
10 yoga leg lifts
side plank (both sides)
2 minute plank (tough)
Missed head stand (could not get into it)
goblet squats 10 x 53 to the sill
head stand (got it)

then a 5K walk outdoors. Too pretty not to.

January 26, 2018 Posted by | hillary clinton, politics, politics/social, social/political, walking, weight training | | Leave a comment

What Happened by Hillary Clinton: my take

The tl;dr take:

1. This won’t change your mind about Hillary Clinton. If you despised her before, you’ll feel the same way after the book. If you loved her before, you’ll still love her. If you thought “ok, decent policy wonk but not really charismatic”, well, you’ll leave this book with the same opinion.

2. I was disappointed: I expected it to be more of “I should have opened X field offices in Pennsylvania and spent Y in ads in Wisconsin” and perhaps a bit more introspection. There was some introspection, but it was scattered throughout. On the other hand, I did learn that what sort of breakfast egg dishes she likes, that she likes an occasional hamburger, that she likes kids, that Justice Ginsberg does planks twice a week and yes, that she (Hillary Clinton) wears yoga pants. Seriously (page 19 for the yoga pants mention)

3. I’d say that about 2/3 of the book is worth reading. The best section is the one called Frustration, which features the 5 chapters Country Roads, Those Damn Emails, “Trolls, Bots, Fake News and Real Russians”, Election Night, Why. I was expecting most of the book to be like this section. It did give a nice summary of the issues of e-mails, Russian meddling, how the press handled things and some of the prevailing headwinds. The chapter “Sweating the Details” in the section “Sisterhood” is good too. And she flat out admitted that much of the country simply does not like her.

4. I’d say that she is finished running for elective office; she really did burn some bridges and say a few things sans a politician’s filter. Here is a beauty: (page 276; she is describing people in Appalachia)

But anger and resentment do run deep. As Appalachian natives such as author J. D. Vance have pointed out, a culture of grievance, victimhood, and scapegoating has taken root as traditional values of self-reliance and hard work have withered. There’s a tendency toward seeing every problem as someone else’s fault, whether it’s Obama, liberal elites in the big cities,
undocumented immigrants taking jobs, minorities soaking up government assistance–or me.

5. And yes, about the “basket of deplorables” remark: she admits that it was a political mistake to make that statement, but she stands by the actual logic of the statement (about half of the Trump supporters fall into that category). Actually, I do too, but it is an interesting statement to make..at least from a politician not named “Trump”.

6. Oh yes, she really doesn’t like Trump. She does take shots at Sanders, Comey, the press, etc. But she really doesn’t like Trump.

7. Above all, this book is, without apology, aimed mostly at women; I’d say at educated, upper middle class women.

More detail: the book is not a linear time progression. It starts out describing the inauguration and her decision to attend (later to go home and put on a fleece top and yoga pants). Chronologically, it skips around quite a bit.

Much of the early part of the book is a bit like NBC’s Olympic coverage: human interest stuff (what she eats, when she wakes up, day to day stuff…kids, grand kids, relations between her staff, etc.).

She does get onto issues, including Black Lives Matter, Mothers of the Movement (black victims of gun violence), Police (yes, she talks about the massacre of police officers), climate change, and the lead in the Flint water supply (and wonders if advocating for poor blacks in Flint cost her votes in Michigan). She also talks about NATO and some of the complexities of foreign policy.

She does have some beefs though:

1. Press coverage. They seemed to be fixated on her e-mail problems (way overblown) and that ate up much of her press coverage; it hurt her ability to talk about issues. It also blotted out coverage about other things, such as he bus tour. She also pointed out that Trump appeared to send the press a “new rabbit to chase” almost daily; that appeared to keep the press from drilling down on his honest to goodness issues.

2. Russian interference: she goes into this in detail; the main issue is not only did they hack into the DNC and into her Podesta’s e-mails, but they also strategically planted fake news and gamed the social media and search engine algorithms so that these stories appeared on the feeds of likely undecided voters living in battleground states.

3. Bernie Sanders: she took shots at his unrealistic “we could have this or that” claims and ridiculed the idea that if we could somehow just get the PACs out of business, his proposals would be popular NATIONWIDE; he seemed to disregard regional differences in attitudes. She resented the implication that she was somehow crooked.

4. She flat out admit that the history of “Clinton scandals” (mostly untrue) dogged her and made people ready to believe new “non-scandals” about her. And on page 399

Moreover I have come to terms with the fact that a lot of people–millions and millions of people, decided they just didn’t like me.

.

5. Introspection: she said that she should have not used the line “we are going to put a lot of coal miners out of work” even though it was quoted out of context.

Here are her full remarks, with the most relevant parts in bold:

Look, we have serious economic problems in many parts of our country. And Roland is absolutely right. Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let’s reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities.

So for example, I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

So whether it’s coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America. We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the ’90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.

Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope.

So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work.

She did discuss her “basket of deplorables” remark on page 413 and noted that she wasn’t talking about all Trump supporters but “about half of them”. She then goes on to provide data (from polls) regarding the attitudes of Trump supporters to back up her claim of accuracy!

She does not pull punches about those who overlooked some of Trump’s ugly statements either.

Getting back to introspection: she acknowledges that perhaps, when listening to angry voters, she jumped straight to proposed solutions instead of listening to the venting to assure the voter that she “got” and “felt” the depth of their anger and pain …first.

6. Resentments: I’ve discussed her stated, well resentments about some of Trump’s supporters. She also took shots at “my way or the highway” activists, shots at those who attempted to “disrupt” her rallies (she made a point to put the word in italics (page 203). About the woman’s marches: she approved of them but wondered where that passion was during the election itself and why some did not vote. She resented Sander’s bumper sticker depth of policy, the press, the timing of the Comey letter (which probably DID cost her the election), the Electoral College and…

7. Being a woman: I’d say that the underlying thread of her book is about being a female and the disadvantages that brings from sexism (e. g. her being a female is one reason to be against her), misogyny (on page 114-115 she explains the difference between the two). She complains about the extra time a woman (in the public eye) has to spend on make up. And yes, she acknowledges that she lost the white women’s vote and especially the non-college educated white woman’s vote.

8. Yes, she discusses race and thinks that she did suffer some backlash from those who resented having a black president for 8 years.

9. She did discuss campaign strategy just a bit and pushed back on the narrative that she didn’t campaign enough in the former “blue wall” rust belt states.

Clearly, there is much more in the book than what I said, but hopefully, you’ll get a sense of whether you want to read it or not.

Update: here is a fact check of her book (it comes out pretty well) She also mentions a Facebook meme that I not only saw but passed around (Bernie and the pony) and a Facebook group that I belonged to (Pantsuit Nation).

December 24, 2017 Posted by | 2016, books, hillary clinton, politics, politics/social, social/political | | 1 Comment

Just why is Hillary Clinton hated so much?

I’ve been reading about Hillary Clinton’s very public discussion of her failed campaign. (here and here}

And the two responses tend to be:

1. She was a dreadful candidate; read the book Shattered.
2, Russian collusion and the Comey letter (e. g. unfair playing field)
3. Sexism

Or some mix of 2 and 3.

And her handling of her loss is either:
1. sour grapes from someone incapable of introspection
2. being realistic about the factors.

Personally, I think that it was a mix of things, including taking some parts of some states for granted (sometimes, losing a county 35-65 instead of 30-70 can help you win a state), yes, Russian meddling, the Comey letter (hurt her just enough) and yes, perhaps some sexism.

But why are people so hard on her? My guess: she really came onto the scene as FLOTUS with Bill and, either fair or unfairly, is seen to have risen off of him. This is an Oliphant cartoon from December 2007, just prior to the Iowa caucuses:

I know of no top politician that got thrust into the limelight by their spouse. Sure, George W. is George H. W.’s son, but is really isn’t the same as getting your fame from a spouse who is a generational peer. I wonder if that would have always been a burden for her.

Yes, she has the right to speak her mind, and she still inspires millions. But she won’t be a viable 2020 candidate.

June 3, 2017 Posted by | Democrats, hillary clinton, politics, politics/social | , | Leave a comment

Trump supporter anger…

I am sorry that I deleted an uninvited comment on Facebook. It was from a Trump supporter making the usual stupid “Trump won 30 states” argument (yeah, but so what; it isn’t as if there are many people in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, etc.) and how left wing “hate” will somehow come back to bite us.

Gee, and they are supporting a President who routinely insults private citizens?

It is a bit like this:

But there is really no reasoning with these people. They support a President who understands very little of what he is doing, just says whatever is on his mind and the moment and..well, whatever.

And so, dialogue with the other side is utterly useless. It is best to just change the subject.

So what to do right now?

For one, forget impeachment. Impeachment is really political and we have no chance unless the House flips in 2018. And even then, forget getting 2/3 of the Senate which is required for removal. Best to focus on winning some seats in 2018 and gumming up the works so little gets past Congress.

This does NOT mean that we should not investigate violations of the emoluments clause, obstruction of justice and possible Russian collusion (Russian meddling has been proven).

What I’d wish that we’d all remember is that, as far as political speech and rallies, it isn’t always about “winning converts”. Sometimes it is to energize and rally a dispirited group. So yes, Hillary Clinton speaking out won’t convince any Republicans to abandon ship, nor will it bring the old Bern Victims into line. But it might energize many who still like her (and there are millions who still do). I think that she has a role to play, though that role is NOT to be at the top of the ticket in 2020.

Ok, once in a while, one of them says something funny:
(remember that the Saudis are our new “best buddies”)

June 1, 2017 Posted by | Democrats, hillary clinton, political/social, politics, politics/social, social/political | , | Leave a comment

The 2016 election is heating up: Sanders vs. Clinton and D’s vs R’s

The general election It is often claimed that Barack Obama is on the 2016 general election ballot, in a way that George W. Bush was in 2008. If so, what can we infer at the current time?

jan15obamaapproval2016

(from here) The dotted line is the average Gallup approval rating of the past several presidents (back to Truman) at that time in their administration (including the second, if they had one). The light green line is President Obama’s, which is tracking the average very well (48 percent as of yesterday) and the dark green which had the spikes and falls is President W. Bush’s.

So, at least as of now, President Obama is fairly typical of past presidents.

Now you might be hearing “oh no, Obama’s approval rating plunges” but if all you hear about are the plunges (or dips in the market, etc.), you miss the ups and get a false picture.

011516krugman1-tmagArticle

So, watch for that when the Republicans attack the Democrats.

The Democratic Race The Clinton campaign admit that things are tightening up. What will happen? I don’t know (I am expecting a split between New Hampshire and Iowa) but this is turning into an election.

The Clinton campaign has thrown some punches. One of those is on health care. Where Sen. Sanders wants a single payer plan; a type of “Medicare for all”, the Clinton campaign does correctly point out that means a dismantling of Obamacare (ACA) and…STATES running the system with the federal government stepping in if certain criteria are not met. Factcheck.org calls the attacks “misleading”; I call them “nuanced”. This is similar to what the two candidates want in terms of financial institution regulation. Sen. Sanders wants Glass-Steagall to be revived. Sec. Clinton has a different idea as Paul Krugman points out:

For what it’s worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t.

Surf to the Krugman article; he goes on to say that those who think that Sec. Clinton is cozy with Wall Street are behind the times; this may have been true in 2008 but it is no longer true.

Right now, big money is hostile to the Democrats.

Social Divide between Clinton and Sanders
Now THIS is starting to look a bit like 2008. I remember the bitter divide between those “latte sipping college types” and the “blue collar” types; the former being with Obama and the latter being with Clinton.

Well, I am seeing this again, albeit in a different way. I am on the Clinton campaign mailing list because I made a campaign contribution (as has my wife).

So, I get this e-mail message from James Carville:

ourgirlhillary

“Our girl Hillary”??? I can see college feminists grinding their teeth on this one. Yes, I “get it”; this sort of language plays well with the sort of crowd that they want to inspire. But it is a faux pas with the academic crowd that I hang with.

I should also be clear: I had more of a personal investment in Barack Obama; he was from my state and a modern professorial type guy. He is cool, calculating and uses Sunday mornings to work out..and he watches football and basketball when he can. I don’t have such a personal investment with Hillary Clinton.

But it is my opinion that she is smart, sober minded, level headed and knows how hard it will be…as she warned in 2008:

I am glad that I voted for Barack Obama, but she did have a better idea of how hard the Republicans would fight Obama and how uncooperative they would be.

Humor This is a silly, which candidate would you want with you in a bar fight post.

January 16, 2016 Posted by | 2016, Democrats, health care, hillary clinton, politics, politics/social | , , , | Leave a comment

Gearing up for Politics

Ok, I am feeling energized this morning. And with the primary races heating up, it is now time to pay attention.

Some thoughts before I hit the gym and do some work:

Politics: well, we are seeing some action in the betting lines. Take a look at 13 January and 14 January:

jan13odds

odds14jan

Though Hillary Clinton remains the “overall leader”, her odds of winning the D nomination have worsened from “prohibitive favorite” to “solid favorite” to win the nomination. And yes, that lead to a slight drop in the odds for a Democrat to win the election. Still, the Sanders campaign deserves some credit. They are now only favored in New Hampshire but have a bona fide shot at winning Iowa.

Yes, the Clinton campaign is paying attention and I’ve noticed a change in tone in their e-mail messages:

Ollie —

This week, two new polls came out that show us losing Iowa.

Don’t let it happen. Chip in $38 right now to show you’re not afraid of a fight.

There are three things I want you to know about those numbers:
(1) We always knew this would happen. From day one, Hillary was ready to fight hard in a competitive primary and earn every last vote. Polls always tighten — and nothing is going to change that as we get closer to the caucus.

(2) Polls might fuel our fire, but they don’t affect our strategy. We can’t risk being outworked and conceding this election to the Republicans. We’ll keep knocking doors, making calls, and showing up every single day even more determined to elect Hillary and make a difference for the families she’s fighting for.

(3) Even though Sanders is outspending us on TV, I truly believe we will win Iowa because of what this team is capable of. That means you, Ollie.
Bernie’s counting on momentum to take him across the finish line. Hillary’s counting on you.

Yes, they are starting to take Sanders seriously, as well they should.

I back Clinton but if she can’t put Sanders away in a couple of months or so, she doesn’t deserve to win the nomination.

No, I am not a “feel the Bern” type; I see the Bern Victims as a collection of idealists and wishful thinkers. But IF he wins the nomination, I will vote for him and support his general election campaign. In 2016, I am a “I prefer Hillary but Bern will do” type of guy.

The state of the economy No, it is not GREAT but it is BETTER than it once was. It is sort of like this: people are concerned with a stock market drop. But:

market

So, what about our Republican friends?

Yes, I have them and some of them absolutely drive me crazy. We discuss the issues: civil liberties. GAy marriage. Religious discrimination. Macro economics. Public investment. AND WE AGREE. Yet they vote Republican?
Basically, there are some who suggest that Republicans are more driven by abstract ideas and Democrats more by the individual issues.

But yeah, I’ll admit it; one some things, I have more in common with my Republican friends than I do my Sanders supporting Democrat ones. This might explain one difference:

But what Clinton suggested in place of a more expansive welfare state illuminates another difference between her politics and Sanders’. Where Sanders tended to focus on inequality and inequality-reducing policies, Clinton focused heavily on increasing opportunity, repeatedly expressing a desire that all Americans be able to realize their “God-given talents,” as she and her husband have. “I have spent a very long time—my entire adult life—looking for ways to even the odds to help people have a chance to get ahead, and, in particular, to find the ways for each child to live up to his or her God-given potential,” Clinton said in her opening remarks, revisiting the idea throughout the debate.

The difference between the two approaches has expansive implications for the American left. A pro-equality platform aims to universalize benefits, so that all people really do have the option to enjoy the same social goods, including education, gainful employment, and family life. An opportunity-focused approach neither intends to reduce inequality per se nor has a clear political apparatus with which to do so. Instead, opportunity-increasing politics aim to increase social mobility without necessarily altering how many people will end up on the top and bottom respectively. The individuals might change, in other words, but the absolute number of destitute versus fabulously wealthy can remain virtually the same.

The bottom line: if things were fair, some people would still fail anyway. I believe in safety nets for those who are hit by horrible luck (lay offs, diseases, accidents, mental illness) and therefore I support stuff like SNAP, unemployment and educational benefits. I believe in a minimum floor for our neighbors and grudgingly acknowledge that a small percentage of people are slackers and moochers …and they’ll continue to be parasites. But I’ll tolerate some of this in order to give those who hunger for success a path upward.

January 14, 2016 Posted by | hillary clinton, politics, politics/social, social/political | , , | Leave a comment

US political odds…

From here

uspolitics

Hillary Clinton is now rated as better than even money, by quite a bit. Note who is 3’rd.

Hillary Clinton is going the right things; e. g. reminding voters that Mr. Trump’s positions are actually in the mainstream among Republicans; it is his style and mannerisms that they don’t like.

December 11, 2015 Posted by | hillary clinton, politics, politics/social | | Leave a comment

Why conservatives get called out so much

Some conservative made this cartoon about college students being coddled and “protected” from competing ideas on college campuses:

cribforcollegestudents

On one hand, I agree that it is dumb to think that college students are qualified to dictate campus policy and some go to far in protecting the “sensitive ears” of those who are deemed to be part of “oppressed classes” and, at times, we don’t fact check our liberal friends because of “solidarity”.

On the other hand, look at what is over the crib.

There is a Hillary Clinton campaign logo; in fact Hillary Clinton is viewed as being “too establishment” for many liberals.

And notice the Barack Obama campaign logo. In fact, President Obama said this:

This is the heart of what Obama said:

“I’ve heard of some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative, or they don’t want to read a book if it had language that is offensive to African Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women,” Obama said Monday while speaking at a town hall meeting at North High School in Des Moines. “I’ve got to tell you, I don’t agree with that either — that you when you become students at colleges, you have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. Anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with them, but you shouldn’t silence them by saying you can’t come because I’m too sensitive to hear what you have to say.”

Obama, who spent just more than a decade teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said what the vast majority of college faculty think about intellectual freedom and freedom of expression on campus: Ideas need not be popular, palatable or even easy to digest to merit discussion. College is a place where ideas of all kinds should be openly explored. Theories are, after all, like viruses; they build on one another.

Conservatives get called out because many of their ideas are wrong. 🙂

But hey, I’ll borrow from the style of one prominent conservative:

Wonder why they hire such untalented cartoonist; he is a real dummy who doesn’t know what he is talking about. No wander they are failing!

December 3, 2015 Posted by | Barack Obama, hillary clinton, social/political | , | Leave a comment

Ugh…that course

Workout notes rainy 8 mile run/walk on the Cornstalk 8 course. I did the “walk the hills” to practice conserving energy. It was slow (13 mpm order, given all the stupid stops to tie the shoes, pull up the shorts, blah, blah, blah) but I finished feeling like I had done nothing, and that is the point. At least for now.

Marathon POSTURE!!!
mepeoriamarathon2015

This was about 2:06 into this video.

Well, I used to be a sort-of-fast walker…no longer.

Football This was taken from the Illinois student section:

memorialstadiumilwiscon2015

Note: this was the “best crowd of the year” and there was an announced 45,000, which seems about right. At this game, students got free tickets.

Politics Primary polling has been volatile; wide swings between polls. I do know that in the betting lines, Sec. Clinton’s odds have improved to better than even money. The Republicans are a mess at the presidential level.

27octpoliticalodds

How will 2016 go? My guess: Democrats win the presidency and the Republicans keep Congress. Why?

This theory leads to at least a few major conclusions about American politics. The one Abramowitz and Webster emphasize is that it gives Republicans an enduring advantage in congressional elections. Republicans have long had a geographical advantage in both House and Senate elections because their voters are more spread out than Democratic voters. In the past, Democratic candidate could compete by distancing themselves from the national party and making the election about local issues. But as the country grows more partisan, that’s becoming harder, and the result is that Republicans are likely to be dominant at the congressional level for some time.

Jonathan Chait, meanwhile, pulls some good news for Democrats out of the data. Just as Republicans have a natural advantage at the congressional level, Chait believes Democrats have a natural advantage at the presidential level, where the voters skew younger and less white. And if fear of a Republican president means the Obama coalition persists after Obama, then it’s going to be a long time before Republicans win back the White House.

So, at these “internet candidate forums” I always ask “how will you work with a possibly hostile Congress?” No answer…ever.

October 27, 2015 Posted by | 2016, hillary clinton, marathons, politics, politics/social, running | , | Leave a comment