Archive for November, 2016

migratory patterns

Monday, November 28th, 2016

She identifies herself as from South Carolina.  Man from Kansas asks “You a red state refugee too?”

It takes two repeats for the meaning of this question to be understandable, so goes the polite laugh and “Sure.  Something like that.”

Sometimes things are a little more apolitical, or if they are political they are so indirectly.

“Did you see Nikki Haley was tapped for the UN post?”

“God, I hate that woman.”

And sometimes they are political.

somewhere in the gray area between graft and honest graft?

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2016

The Great Political Philosopher, George Washington Plunkitt, may have roughly the best hope for regarding President Donald Trump on the issue that he’s gravitating toward to seal “working class whites” that brought him the election.

Which your Paul Krugmans and Bernie Sanderses are sliding into a project of corporate cronyism more than straight ahead new dealistic kenyanism.

(All very confusing distinctions to conservative punditry, particularly when history shows everything as strange unavoidable mixtures.)

There is Graft, and then there is Honest Graft*.
Maybe Donald Trump can provide us with a hybrid, and that will be good enough for Paul Krugman’s splitting of hairs on Donald Trump’s “accidentally” doing the right thing.

* Note on link sourcing: I guess I just have to thank the Communists at marxist dot org for putting up the Plunkitt / Riordon book defending Tammany Hall Politics, and being the first thing to pop up when I google it.

back to role as “South Park Republicanism”

Saturday, November 19th, 2016

Granted, Stone and Parker and the rest of the crew at South Park want you to actually watch the episode, and this clip is just a spur to take you it, but more shortly than later they’d have to pull the clip forward — like so –to their not horribly subtle political commentary in this bit, after Garrison is changed into Trump in the presidential “transition”.

With Vice President Caitlyn Jenner — just to show how theshow’s post election maneuvering after an unexpected outcome is going to be awkward.

PC Principal: Certainly want to, uh, congratulate you on the election.
Mr. Garrison: Do you remember the day you fired me, PC Principal? PC Principal: I know we’ve had some differences, uh –
Mr. Garrison: I was upset because a bunch of immigrants were changing my class, and I believe your response was that I needed to go and learn their language, be more open-minded.
PC Principal: I’m sorry that you’re position here at the school was terminated.
Mr. Garrison: Are you really? Are you really sorry? Because you see, PC Principal, you helped create me. You insisted that I was a bigot, that I was an intolerant relic left over from another time. But now…I’m your president. 

Sure.  Sure.  I’m familiar with the trope of linking like so:  This is why people are voting for Trump — tired of hearing about racist pumpkins.  The pounding problem lands on that the salve to micro-aggression isn’t macro-aggression — and when do Confederate Flags become big commodities in our nation as statements of what? — and the only thing worse than political correctness is political incorrectness.

As we see, the new Trump Administration is remarkably thin skinned.  See this obvious line on Trump’s continued twittering, as against reception of Hamilton audience to Mark Pence.  A president or VP who cant handle boos should find another line of work.



Friday, November 18th, 2016

A somewhat more complicated map to digest than the 2008 “reddening and bluing of the map”, where that “red streak” in a sea of blue portented the future problems for Obama.  (Analyzed simply as the congruence of dying industry alongside the most concentrated “racial backlash” — and we know it’ll bleed outward.)  And a tad misleading — because, okay, Hillary Clinton fell off most places from Obama (though what’d be blue portents the future demise of the Republican Party in the same way the red of 2008 did the future demise of the Democratic Party.) — but the matter is the heavy flipping instead of the slow erosion…

trumpincreasesin2016  This is an interesting premise.  Effectively, we have an analysis for Pennsylvania that Clinton showed up well in Suburbia and the Urban city, but in the rural communities…

… where it had seemed the Democrats had hit bottom already, so why bother?

… They found a new bottom.

What happened is that where Obama lost the smaller more rural counties in the 70-30 range, Clinton lost them in closer to an 80-20 range.

I like the comments analysis here.  Clinton lost due to Sandy Hook, which effectively put gun control back on the map as a Democratic cause.  (Cynically possible.)  Email did it!  (Bubble-ocracy).  Maybe we should legalize heroin?   (Hm…)

Nate Silver looks okay.

Wednesday, November 16th, 2016

A bit of stupidity emits here, your “neener neener neener” lobbed at Nate Silver and 538, under-cutting bursts of reality that intrude as Trump begins to “make due” on his campaign promises into the real world.

I wonder if this is as accurate as your forecast models.

ow many are there 538? Your statistical modeling definitely nailed the election – BWHAAAHAAA\

In the weekend before the election, Silver’s forecasting had Trump a “routine polling error” behind Hillary Clinton.  And so he was.  He had Donald Trump’s chances of beating Hillary Clinton above those of Mitt Romney against Barack Obama, and had given the indicators (watch the polls for New Hampshire) for where you’d spot a “Trump Comeback”.  It was such that on one occasion — maybe two — I had linked Nate Silver’s pessimistic cold water as a counter-point to Larry Sabato’s more optimistic idea (The Huffington Post’s I never took seriously).

I suppose where the “statistical modeling” fell apart was on election day, as returns came in and his snake had Nevada out in the red behind the rust belt states that turned red — which looked incredibly off to me at the time because the states that match Nevada’s demographic profile — Colorado — was sticking to roughly where it was four years ago.   THAT is something I’d like explained.

But a 30 percent chance of winning the election is not a zero percent chance.