blueollie

If you want Hillary to win: make yourself worried or comfortable…

The Scholastic News magazine did their kids poll. Though their map frequently does not predict the true map, they’ve gotten the winner except in 1948 (very close) and 1960 (extremely close): (K-12 kids)

kidsvote

Sam Wang (at Princeton) says that “that cake is baked” in that he gives Clinton a 99 percent chance to win.

But Election Projection shows a tight Electoral College map (288-250) (Electoral Vote shows 323-215) and the sports books show 2/5 to 1/3 odds favoring Hillary Clinton.

This is reminding me of the 2012 race, but this time, I am not as plugged into the campaign and I am not getting the “ground game metrics” that I had gotten in the past.

Advertisements

November 2, 2016 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social | | Leave a comment

I could go on and on about the debate…

But I won’t. Basically, Hillary Clinton showed up prepared and kept her cool. Trump mostly hyperventilated, shouted and was incoherent. Those with money to bet must have agreed; Hillary Clinton’s odds improved and Trump’s fell.

Sure, our country was polarized coming in and still is, and what Sam Wang said before the debate still holds. Trump didn’t lose his hard core support. What I can see happening is that those with stocks who are in Gary Johnson’s camp probably won’t be inspired to move to Trump. Can you imagine your retirement portfolio going away with Trump running things?

Sure, Trump had similar performances in the GOP debates and his numbers, AMONG REPUBLICANS went up. But Paul Krugman noted this a long time ago:

Think about Trump’s obvious weaknesses, why Republicans couldn’t exploit them, but why Democrats can.

First, he’s running a campaign fundamentally based on racism. But Republicans couldn’t call him on that, because more or less veiled appeals to racial resentment have been key to their party’s success for decades. Clinton, on the other hand, won the nomination thanks to overwhelming nonwhite support, and will have no trouble hitting hard on this issue.

Second, Trump is proposing wildly irresponsible policies that benefit the rich. But so were all the other Republicans, so they couldn’t attack him for that. Clinton can.

Third, Trump’s personal record as a businessman is both antisocial and just plain dubious. Republicans, with their cult of the entrepreneur, couldn’t say anything about that. Again, Clinton can.

The G.O.P. paralysis on these issues explains why, again and again, Republicans turned to a proven line of attack — that is, proven not to work: insisting that Trump isn’t a true conservative, which matters to voters not at all. Obviously Democrats will be able to go after different and, I imagine, a lot more salient issues.

And there’s one last thing, which I suspect may make the biggest difference of all: Clinton’s campaign can go after Trump’s fundamental buffoonery.

I mean, he is a ludicrous figure, and everything we learn just makes him more ludicrous. So why couldn’t Republicans make that stick? I’d argue that it was because there was something fairly ludicrous about all his opponents, too.

Think about Marco Rubio: even before his famous brain glitch, it was just obvious that he was a prefab candidate, a nice-looking guy with no real convictions or experience reciting lines he was told to deliver. The infamous “We must dispel with …” wasn’t just vile and stupid (even the first time, let alone repeated); it was also, transparently, not something Rubio believed or even cared about except that his handlers told him to say it.

Or think about Ted Cruz, whose mean-spiritedness and self-centered nature evidently stand out even in today’s conservative movement, making him a hated figure even among those who should like his message.

Clinton, on the other hand, is not ludicrous. She can think on her feet; she’s tough as nails. Do you really think the person who stared down the Benghazi committee for 11 hours is going to wither under schoolboy taunts?

The news media will, I fear, try their best to pretend that the contrast isn’t what it is. We’ll hear endless explanations of why Trump’s vanity, ignorance, and lack of moral fiber somehow prove his “authenticity”, which Clinton somehow lacks. And maybe that will stick with voters. But I don’t think it will. In the end, it will be a race between a tough, smart lady and someone who is obviously a yuge, um, Antonin Scalia School of Law. And voters will notice.

September 27, 2016 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social | , , | Leave a comment

How I know that Trump failed in the debate…

Look at the betting lines. Here are the “morning of the debate” numbers:

completeodds25july

Now look at the numbers the morning AFTER the debate:

postdebateodds27sep

The colors show that Hillary’s odds are getting stronger; Trump’s weaker. (note: a small fraction means “heavier favorite”; 4/9 means you have to risk 9 dollars to win 4. Example: if you think Clinton will win, you bet 9. IF she wins, you get your 9 back plus 4 more. If you bet on Trump, you risk 4 to win that back, plus 7 more.

September 27, 2016 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social | , | 1 Comment

I am actually bored with this election

I never dreamed that I’d be bored with an election. In this case, I was surprised at how interested I was in the primary but …how bored I am with the general. Basically, the general is Trump saying one dumb thing after another. And the electoral math looks terrible for him:

11augelectoralvotemap

(via Electoral Vote) The betting lines are running 3-1 to 4-1 for Hillary Clinton. The various models are showing Clinton having an 81 to 88 percent chance of winning.

No one knows what will happen, of course. But I’ll make these predictions:

1. Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote by between 7-8 points (the largest margins of the last few “no incumbent in the race” elections, similar to Dukakis vs. Bush I or Obama vs. McCain)
2. Hillary Clinton will win at least one state that Obama did NOT carry either in 2008 or 2012. I think that Georgia, Arizona or Mississippi are the best candidates for that; or perhaps Missouri or Kansas.

But November 8 is a long way away …so long in fact, that my favorite football teams have yet to be eliminated from playoff contention. 🙂

August 11, 2016 Posted by | football, political/social, politics | | Leave a comment

Ok, my first map

I haven’t really dug down into the data. I did post a map to Facebook, but I altered that a little.

mymapjune22

I think it will turn out to be midway between the 2008 and 2012 maps. Trump has some problems with the ground game and with fundraising. Right now, Clinton is almost a 3-1 favorite in the betting lines.

June 22, 2016 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social | | Leave a comment

An Open Letter to those Supporting Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders (or a 3’rd party candidate)

Vote for who you want to. Most of us have our reasons for supporting a certain candidate and that doesn’t mean that we like ALL aspects of a given candidate.

Do you want to talk politics with me, or to discuss social issues? Please keep it civil, and bring in facts and reasoning.

If you don’t want to do that, we can discuss something else (sports, workouts, Indian food, whatever..)

That is all.

May 17, 2016 Posted by | Friends, politics, politics/social | | Leave a comment

Bad reasons to vote Trump…and the Senate races

I am somewhat amused at the Republicans refusing to consider a nominee from President Obama. They control the Senate at this time, and they may well get a better deal now (say if President Obama nominates a moderate) than they would if they wait.

There are Senate races and the Democrats have some promising pick up opportunities:

Even before they were forced to reconcile whether to support Donald Trump and whether to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Senate Republicans had their work cut out for them to keep control of the chamber they won in 2014. They’re defending 24 of the 34 seats up in 2016, and seven of those are in states that voted for Obama not once but twice.

The latest complications on the national level have only made Republicans’ job more difficult. Eight of the top 10 Senate races we list here as the most likely to change parties in November are Republican-held, and University of Virginia electoral experts Larry Sabato and Kyle Kondik think if Trump is Republicans’ nominee, it will move nearly every race on this list (and then some) closer to Democrats’ reach.

In other words, Democrats have more than one path to win back control of the Senate. Overall, they need to win five states, or just four if Democrats take the White House, since the vice president can serve as a tie-breaker in a 50-50 Senate.

Wouldn’t it be lovely to see this blow up in Mitch McConnell’s face?

Now about Donald Trump: yes, he is attracting some “secret support” and I found this one to be the most interesting:

I’m a liberal-left college professor in the social sciences. I’m going to vote for Trump but I won’t tell hardly anybody.

My main reason is anger at the two-party system and the horrible presidencies of Obama and Bush. But I’m also furious at political correctness on campus and in the media.

I’m angry at forced diversity and constant, frequently unjustified complaints about racism/sexism/homophobia/lack of trans rights. I’m particularly angry at social justice warriors and my main reason to vote Trump is to see the looks on your faces when he wins.

It’s not that I like Trump. It’s that I hate those who can’t stand him. I want them to suffer the shock of knowing all their torrents of blog posts and Tumblr bitch-fests and “I just can’t …” and accusations of mansplaining didn’t actually matter. That they’re still losing. And that things are not getting better for them. They’re getting worse.

Oh yes, the know-it-all “activists” and “social justice warriors” who have their lists and seem to want to insist on the “proper amount of outrage” over certain alleged offenses. Yeah, I can’t stand them either and part of me relishes seeing their faces if Trump gets elected.

BUT: I also care about our country, and I see Trump as a con artists who has failed to deliver on many promises that he (or those using his brand) have made in the past. And no, he can’t fire Congress. I think that problems deserve careful consideration and thoughtful working together with others. I see Trump as a skilled con artist who won’t be able to get action on some of his biggest promises. And yes, I like *some* of his economic platform: infrastructure repair and rebuilding and protecting Social Security and Medicare. And I get a thrill watching him call out George W. Bush for Iraq, “not keeping us safe” (9/11 happened on his watch, though I don’t blame him for it…still that is not being “kept safe”), and eschewing more tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.

Still competence matters and I see no one more knowledgeable and prepared than Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump is a non-starter with me, though I dislike many who dislike him.

March 4, 2016 Posted by | politics, politics/social | , , , | 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 I really don’t care about a candidate’s “adultery allegations”

It seems that every time there is a national election, some allegations of adultery are issued. This campaign is no exception.

Now I am NOT saying that “adultery is ok”, “good” or whatever. I see it as a deeply personal matter between that person and their spouse.

Besides I also believe that monogamy is unnatural (evidence is that humans are mildly polygynous (or here) and hence, it takes a certain amount of energy to say faithful, if there is any opportunity whatsoever.

But then there is this: powerful men are sought after; women frequently come on to them. So the more powerful, famous, desirable men have more temptation and have to deal with it far more often.

Fortunately(?) I am not the most desirable ape in the tribe so there isn’t much temptation that comes my way. But any attention at all (e. g. a directed smile at a race or sporting event, a flirty remark or wiggle) goes right to my head. If I were subjected to actual seduction attempts on a frequent basis by a variety of desirable women, I’m sure that I’d eventually crack.

Notice I said nothing about the candidate’s spouse. I’m sure that the spousal relationship has at least some effect but it would be my guess that it isn’t a major factor (most of the time). This is 21 minutes long, but, in my opinion, worth watching.

So, these sort of allegations directed at a political candidate mean little to me.

Caveat to my female friends who are reading this I am NOT talking about you!!! I am not claiming to have lived a perfect life, but none of the female friends that have ever read this blog has done anything wrong (with me at least). I am merely discussing why I don’t consider this to be a factor when I am deciding on who to vote for.

December 10, 2015 Posted by | politics, politics/social, social/political | , | Leave a comment

Republican Debate: so bad, Hillary Clinton’s odds improved overnight!

29octpoliticaloddspostdebate

Via here. Hillary Clinton is 11/13, better than even money. Yes, Rubio’s odds improved too.

Here are the previous odds:

2 days before

27octpoliticalodds

2 weeks before

odds14oct

3 weeks earlier

uspoliticaloddsoct8

October 29, 2015 Posted by | 2016, politics | , , | Leave a comment