Most vicious people on Twitter are…NOT Trump supporters…

Ok, it is amateur hour in the White House and now we are getting “he is too dumb to have known better” defense (with regard to attempted collusion with the Russians)

And yes, it appears that actual campaign laws were broken.

Now of course, this needs to be investigated, sorted out and appropriate legal penalties should be applied.

As far as “ending the Trump presidency”: really, the way we can do that is to win a bunch of seats in the 2018 midterms, and yes, win the 2020 election. Forget President Trump being removed from office; even with a potential Democratic House, we are never getting a 2/3 majority of the Senate.

We need to win at the ballot box, and investigations can help us have a more fair election next time.

Now about my headline a fellow Democrat pointed out that the people nastiest to them were not Trump supporters but rather Sanders supporters! And yes, I can believe that.

It seems that many of the Bern victims just “know” that if their message got out, people would just flock to Bernie’s platform because it is just so righteous, just and, well, “reasons”.

Trump supporters might not like people like me, or see me as naive, wrong headed, or whatever. But they will admit that there are lots of people like me out there. Bernie supporters: well, if you don’t support Bernie, it is because you don’t know Bernie, or because you are some establishment dupe, etc. For many of them, it is “all slogans, all of the time”.

Workout notes 4 mile treadmill run in 42:50; 30 minutes of “5 minute Froggy” then 12:30 of 2:30 Froggy. Then a 1 mile cool down walk.

4 miles at this effort was once 37-38 minutes (in 2009) Oh well.


July 12, 2017 Posted by | running, social/political, walking | , | Leave a comment

Emotions and political decisions

Ah, the appeals to nostalgia….you are seeing a lot of this from the Trump campaign. Evidently such appeals worked in the Brexit campaign; too many of us pine for “good old days” that, well, never actually existed. Oh sure, I liked the way that my body worked when I was in my 20’s, but there is so much more that is good in this day and age. And I won’t even get into the other things, such as our country electing a black president and probably getting ready to elect a woman too. And my gay friends and neighbors now enjoy far more rights, including the right to marriage. Things ARE better now, though it is easy to cherry pick the good from the days gone by.

And I think that expectations are higher now. I wonder how many eyebrows would have been raised by this official Red Cross “Pool Safety” poster?

Of course, appeals to emotion still work and these will be heavily used by the Trump campaign.

It sure as heck worked for the Sanders campaign (at least to a degree); some of my Hillary supporting friends saw the need to “go underground”. I joined such a group too, though I was a bit more noisy in my intolerance of nonsense coming from Sanders supporters.


You are hearing garbage about “Sanders is about to flip California” when, in fact, he still trails by about 420,000 votes with just under 600,000 total votes (including Republican votes) to be counted. It is about to the point where Sanders would have to win close to ALL of the remaining votes to catch up all of the way…in fact, we may well be past that point.

But try getting the third degree Bern Victims to understand that.

June 28, 2016 Posted by | politics, politics/social, social/political | , , | Leave a comment

I have no respect for a type of protester (who seems to back a certain candidate)

I want to make this clear: I enjoy the company of people who are voting for different candidates. Of course, I back Hillary Clinton, but I’ve also enjoyed the company of those backing Bernie Sanders and those who are backing Donald Trump and those who cannot support any of the remaining “major” candidates.

People make political decisions for all sorts of reasons. For example: while I certainly consider a candidate’s platform and long term vision, I also consider things like how much they know, how well they can apply that knowledge, how well they work with others and political skill. So while I like some of Bernie Sanders’ long term vision (though I prefer Hillary Clinton’s platform on science issues) I believe she is better situated to get action on at least a bit of her platform.

We really aren’t going to get anything done without Congress, and we won’t get control of either chamber without electing some (many?) “Blue Dog” Democrats from somewhat conservative states and districts. And some of Hillary Clinton’s platform might survive such a Congress.

But people can disagree, or make a different decision for a different reason.

That is fine.

But there are always *some* who think that their ideas are the only ones that deserve a hearing, and that they have a “right” to disrupt other candidates rallies.

And from the evidence I’ve seen...guess which candidate these people are backing? Again, I do not see these people as being representative of the backers of that candidate.

Yes, I’ve read stories of protesters at Trump rallies being roughed up. But I haven’t seen stories of Trump supporters disrupting Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders rallies. I haven’t see stories of Hillary Clinton supporters disrupting Trump or Sanders rallies.

And on my Facebook wall, I haven’t been cursed out by Trump supporters, though that might be because so many on my friends list lean liberal and those Trump supporters who could comment on my wall are the type who tolerate difference of opinion.

But I have been cursed out by Sanders supporters.

May 9, 2016 Posted by | politics, politics/social | , , , , | Leave a comment

Think that Sanders is going to win the nomination? Take my challenge.

Workout notes
weights: 5 sets of 10 pull ups (tough)
rotator cuff
incline presses: 10 x 135, 7 x 150 (bad), 10 x 140
military: 2 sets of 12 x 50 (seated, supported), 7 x 85 (barbell)
rows: 3 sets of 10 x 50 (single arm)
head stand (almost went over at first)
twist crunches: 2 sets of 12
yoga leg lifts: 2 sets of 10

swim: 500 (chased Jason at the end)
5 x (50 drill (fins), 50 free (no fins)
5 x (25 fly, 25 free, 25 back, 25 free)
100 pull, 100 free, 100 pull

I was just off.

Democratic Race The polls have done a good job (save Michigan) except for the caucus states. (via Sam Wang):

The most important quantity for prediction is the accuracy of all the polls aggregated. The delegate-weighted sum of polls is Clinton +17.9%. The delegate-weighted voting result is Clinton +14.8%. The difference, 3 percentage points in Sanders’s direction, is greater than the ~2% that one would expect from sampling error alone. However, it does not come anywhere close to the 22-point swing that I calculated is necessary for Sanders to get an overall majority of pledged delegates by June 7th.

But alas, there are those who “just know” that Sanders is on his way to winning the majority of pledged delegates.

Though I have no problem with people saying that they like him better than the alternative, I do get tired of the ill informed and the mathematically illiterate saying stupid things on my wall. So I issued a challenge:

Ok Sanders supporters, I’ve had enough of your trash talk. So it is time to put up or shut up.
If you are sure that Sanders is going to win the nomination, let’s make the following bet:
If Sanders wins the nomination, I’ll give his campaign 100 dollars. If Clinton wins, you give her campaign 25 dollars.
That is 4-1; how magnanimous can I be?
I’ll make that bet with the first 5 Sanders supporters who are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Update: let me be clear. I have no beef with those who either like Sanders better or who don’t like Clinton. Here, my beef is with those who dispute the fact that Clinton has an all-but-insurmountable lead in pledged delegates; those who claim that the media (, Paul Krugman, etc.) are lying when they say that she basically has the nomination wrapped up.
THOSE are the people who I am calling out here.

Note: I had to add the update because the less-than-bright seemed to read this as a “how dare you say something positive about Sanders on my wall”. I was addressing those who deny the reality of the pledged delegate situation.

Of course, I had no takers; I didn’t expect any. All bluster…with nothing to back it up.

March 29, 2016 Posted by | politics, politics/social, swimming, weight training | , | Leave a comment

2016 Super Tuesday vs. 2008

By the numbers:

BHO: 13 states: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah.
HRC: 9 states + American Samoa: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee.
Pledged delegates: BHO 847, HRC: 834
HRC actually won the aggregate popular vote 46-45 percent.

HRC: 7 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia
BS: 4 states: Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Vermont
Pledged delegates: HRC 504, BS: 340

For the record: yes, President Obama carried Massachusetts and Virginia twice. So she won some “blue” states. And Oklahoma: long shot at best. So Sanders carried one solidly red state.

As it stands:

Democrats: HRC leads 10-5 in terms of states, leads 577-394 in pledged delegates.
Republicans: Trump has a 10-4-1 lead (Cruz 4 states, Rubio 1) with 338-230-109-27-8 lead in pledged delegates (Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Carson..with Carson dropping out today)

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

Before you take Robert Reich’s political predictions too seriously…

Yes, Robert Reich knows about economic matters. But about his political predictions:

The reason I think Scott Walker is most likely to win the Republican nomination for president isn’t just because the Kohl’s-wearing, Harley-riding governor of Wisconsin has implemented a conservative agenda in a state that has gone Democratic in seven straight presidential elections — effectively eliminating collective bargaining for most public employees, facing down the angry protests that followed, and surviving a rancorous recall election. It’s also because he has tailored himself to look and act like the champion of the white working class now at the heart of the Republican Party.


(yeah, ok, I thought Bush was the favorite…but you know how seriously to take my long range predictions. In 2008 I was worried about FRED THOMPSON. Really.)

March 2, 2016 Posted by | politics | , , | Leave a comment

No, Democrats are not necessarily rational….

Paul Krugman appears to be worried that some liberals are willing to part ways with reality if the like the message:

Matthew Yglesias says that the Sanders campaign won’t care about the warnings from top Democratic economists that its numbers are nonsense, and that it doesn’t need to care. That may or may not be true — my guess is that making growth claims that are even more outlandish than those of the Republicans, and having made it impossible for progressive policy experts to offer a full-throated defense of your position, would do more harm in a general election than he imagines.

But leave the political gaming on one side for a moment: I just want to say how much of a shame it will be if a good piece of the Democratic party’s left wing decides that progressive wonks are the enemy. And yes, I have a vested interest in this business — not because I’m a Hillary shill, not because I’m a corporate stooge, but because wonkdom is a key part of who I am and why I think I can play any positive role.

So, about wonks and progressive values: the reason the joke about facts having a liberal bias rings so true is that this really has become a defining difference between the two sides of our political chasm. On the right, allegiance to voodoo has become obligatory — leading Republican economists fell right in line when Jeb! announced his 4-percent solution. On the left, real policy research and political positions have marched hand in hand. The push for higher minimum wages, to take a not at all arbitrary example, has been mightily helped by the research literature showing that higher minimums don’t cost jobs, a line of research pioneered by Alan Krueger, one of the signatories of that open letter.

And in general, progressivism in America has valued intellectual integrity and openness to evidence, while conservatism increasingly rejects all of that — which is why scientists overwhelmingly lean Democratic.

Yes, scientists do lean Democratic. But the liberal base: well, look at the GMO issue. All too many liberals buy into the woo-woo and claim that scientists that try to explain that fears over GMOs are exaggerated are called “shills for Monsanto” and the like.

So, as much as I’d like to believe otherwise, conservatives have no monopoly on anti-intellectualism.

February 19, 2016 Posted by | economics | , , , | Leave a comment