CANADA:
There are 4 main pipeline proposals to get Alberta oil to customers. 1 of them has just been nixed, while 2 have been approved.
Keystone, the "south" route, ends on the Gulf of Mexico. Since the political impact of that pipeline would mostly happen in the US, and the US has approval power over the line, I will skip it.
Northern Gateway, the "north" route, ends on the north coast of BC. It's highly controversial as it travels through environmentally sensitive land. This is the pipeline that Trudeau has nixed.
Line 3, the "east" route, ends at the Great Lakes. It runs through many unpopulated areas and is less controversial. It does technically end in the United States.
Trans Mountain, the "west" route, ends in Vancouver. This pipeline already exists, but this plan would see it expanded greatly. It is unpopular in the Vancouver area.
East and West were both approved.
My thoughts? This will make it much more difficult for Trudeau to hold on to his current BC seats. No guarantee that it means massive losses however.
ICELAND:
The most recent news is that the two largest parties, the right-wing Independence and left-wing Left-Greens, are looking at a possible grand coalition. These parties would still need an additional seat for a majority, and so, would need a 3rd party to join them. It's possible that one of the very first ideas put forth for a possible post-election coalition, might come true; that would see a Pirate Prime Minister with Left-Green and Independence cabinet ministers in a coalition.
SOUTH KOREA:
I don't follow scandals much, so don't know the full details, but the President has been deep in a huge scandal for some time now. She's recently asked Parliament to find a way for her to step down. The Opposition controls Parliament so exactly how this plays out remains to be seen.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Monday, November 28, 2016
Updates
Just a few updates to politics around the world (europe in particular)
Fillon has been elected as candidate for the Republicans in France. He is known as a bit of a radical in terms of being further to the right than most other candidates from that party. He will likely face Le Pen in the final round of the Presidential election, where Fillon may have the edge due to his strong right-wing credentials.
Iceland remains without a new government. The conservative Independence Party has failed to form a government, and so the Left-Greens, second placed finishers, were asked to do so. They also failed, and so the President turned to the Pirate Party. Alas, these negotiations also failed, and so the President has told Parliament to just hurry up and pick someone to be Prime Minister already.
In the Australian seat of Orange, in the state of NSW Parliament (similar to a provincial MLA in Canada) a smaller party has won a by-election. The "Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers" party has managed to edge out a 50 vote victory over the National party. National, the "rural party", was accused by many of abandoning this rural area and other rural areas; as a result, the SFF now has a seat in the state assembly. This is fairly rare in Australian politics, as normally, "small parties" only win seats if they are organized on multiple levels, and lead by known quantities; examples include Bob Katter and Clive Palmer.
Italy is going to the polls December 4th to vote on a constitutional referendum. The politics is that the proposal is backed by the government but opposed by M5S, which polls suggest is the largest opposition party. Currently the "no" side is leading in the polls.
Austria goes to the polls on the same day (December 4th) to pick a new president. The same two candidates have been running for nearly a year due to botched elections, a further post will be made about this within the week.
Fillon has been elected as candidate for the Republicans in France. He is known as a bit of a radical in terms of being further to the right than most other candidates from that party. He will likely face Le Pen in the final round of the Presidential election, where Fillon may have the edge due to his strong right-wing credentials.
Iceland remains without a new government. The conservative Independence Party has failed to form a government, and so the Left-Greens, second placed finishers, were asked to do so. They also failed, and so the President turned to the Pirate Party. Alas, these negotiations also failed, and so the President has told Parliament to just hurry up and pick someone to be Prime Minister already.
In the Australian seat of Orange, in the state of NSW Parliament (similar to a provincial MLA in Canada) a smaller party has won a by-election. The "Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers" party has managed to edge out a 50 vote victory over the National party. National, the "rural party", was accused by many of abandoning this rural area and other rural areas; as a result, the SFF now has a seat in the state assembly. This is fairly rare in Australian politics, as normally, "small parties" only win seats if they are organized on multiple levels, and lead by known quantities; examples include Bob Katter and Clive Palmer.
Italy is going to the polls December 4th to vote on a constitutional referendum. The politics is that the proposal is backed by the government but opposed by M5S, which polls suggest is the largest opposition party. Currently the "no" side is leading in the polls.
Austria goes to the polls on the same day (December 4th) to pick a new president. The same two candidates have been running for nearly a year due to botched elections, a further post will be made about this within the week.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
US Election: Update on projection
Yea, this stuff never ends, does it.
My current projection for elector counts on December 19th is as follows:
You'll notice a lot more boxes. Some of these are based on hard evidence of electors who are debating becoming faithless, while others are just preparing for stuff there's no evidence for.
My current projection for elector counts on December 19th is as follows:
You'll notice a lot more boxes. Some of these are based on hard evidence of electors who are debating becoming faithless, while others are just preparing for stuff there's no evidence for.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Prediction: Michelle Rempel will be next Tory PM
A bold prediction;
Michelle Rempel will be the next Conservative to become Prime Minister.
It might happen because of a shift in seat balance between elections, or maybe even as part of some coalition deal we currently can not fathom, but likely, it will be because she's lead her party to victory in an election.
Whomever wins the current leadership race will find themselves leading a party unable to form a government. They will lose elections, but may well force the Liberals into minority territory. Regardless, whomever wins the leadership will not win the election.
Rather it is the person who wins the next leadership, or perhaps even the one after that, Michelle Rempel, who will be the next Conservative to be Prime Minister.
Again, I'm not putting dates on any of this. I'm not saying that there will be another leadership election in the Conservative party before the 2019 election, nor am I saying that Rempel will defeat Trudeau. We could see a decade of Liberal rule, or even two decades, and there could be two, three, four, or more Liberal Prime Ministers in that period of time.
But the next time someone with a Conservative party membership walks into 24 Sussex as it's new resident, her name will be Michelle Rempel.
Edited to add:
This is going to be one of my "Pumpernickel Predictions" so called because that's a fairly rare word, and so, will make this prediction easy to find in the future.
Michelle Rempel will be the next Conservative to become Prime Minister.
It might happen because of a shift in seat balance between elections, or maybe even as part of some coalition deal we currently can not fathom, but likely, it will be because she's lead her party to victory in an election.
Whomever wins the current leadership race will find themselves leading a party unable to form a government. They will lose elections, but may well force the Liberals into minority territory. Regardless, whomever wins the leadership will not win the election.
Rather it is the person who wins the next leadership, or perhaps even the one after that, Michelle Rempel, who will be the next Conservative to be Prime Minister.
Again, I'm not putting dates on any of this. I'm not saying that there will be another leadership election in the Conservative party before the 2019 election, nor am I saying that Rempel will defeat Trudeau. We could see a decade of Liberal rule, or even two decades, and there could be two, three, four, or more Liberal Prime Ministers in that period of time.
But the next time someone with a Conservative party membership walks into 24 Sussex as it's new resident, her name will be Michelle Rempel.
Edited to add:
This is going to be one of my "Pumpernickel Predictions" so called because that's a fairly rare word, and so, will make this prediction easy to find in the future.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Working Class, Poor, and other such things
A somewhat short and perhaps disjointed post.
First, the working class. I had a dispute with someone on twitter about this. Here is my view.
At this point, a reminder. I am Canadian. I therefore write from the Canadian perspective to a Canadian audience. I always try to keep things accessible, but there may be things unique to Canada that do not apply elsewhere that I'm missing. Despite that, I strongly feel that this issue is one where Canada, the US, and the UK are all in the same boat. I'm less sure if this applies in Australia and NZ however.
Here is an interesting image from EKOS.
Notice how stable numbers were up until the great recession. Sadly, I can't find numbers from before this, but in general, the people I've spoken to say the same thing.
There wasn't really a "working class" here the same way there was in Britain, for example.
Important is that this is self-rated. Why is that important?
Frankly, it's an income thing.
15 years ago the general view of the income classes in canada was that there was a large "lower middle" class. Nowadays, that class is tiny, if not outright gone.
According to statscan, with the most recent data I could find
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=2060031&&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=31&tabMode=dataTable&csid=#F8
You can divide Canada into 10 groups each containing 10% of the population.
The poorest 10% have a family income, every year, of $9,300 - 98% of their income 4 years ago
Second is $21,800 - 104% of their income 4 years ago
Third is $31,100 - 103%
Fourth is $40,200 - 103%
Fifth is $50,000 - 105%
Sixth is $61,300 - 106%
Seventh is $74,300 - 105%
Eight is $90,900 - 105%
Ninth is $114,400 - 105%
Tenth is $186,500 - 104%
You may also notice a massive gap between the married, or, those with children (economic families) and single people (non-economic families)
The average married/children income went up by 106%
The average unmarried/single income went up by 101%
There wasn't really a "working class" here the same way there was in Britain, for example.
Important is that this is self-rated. Why is that important?
Frankly, it's an income thing.
15 years ago the general view of the income classes in canada was that there was a large "lower middle" class. Nowadays, that class is tiny, if not outright gone.
According to statscan, with the most recent data I could find
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=2060031&&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=31&tabMode=dataTable&csid=#F8
You can divide Canada into 10 groups each containing 10% of the population.
The poorest 10% have a family income, every year, of $9,300 - 98% of their income 4 years ago
Second is $21,800 - 104% of their income 4 years ago
Third is $31,100 - 103%
Fourth is $40,200 - 103%
Fifth is $50,000 - 105%
Sixth is $61,300 - 106%
Seventh is $74,300 - 105%
Eight is $90,900 - 105%
Ninth is $114,400 - 105%
Tenth is $186,500 - 104%
You may also notice a massive gap between the married, or, those with children (economic families) and single people (non-economic families)
The average married/children income went up by 106%
The average unmarried/single income went up by 101%
You can also adjust the table with advance options.
Some 'fun' facts:
Between 1976 and 2014 the total increase in average income for all groups combined was 121.65%
Between 1991 and 2014 the increase was 131.02%, as, incomes had fallen between 1976 and 1991.
Here is where it gets interesting.
Since 1991 the change for the lowest decile has been 96.88%. They've been getting poorer. The biggest cut came between 1991 and 1998, and again after 2008.
The second decile has only change 117.84% since 1991. Every richer group changed by at least 121.48% in the same period.
They also changed 120.44% since 1998, while every richer group changed at least 122.19%.
We see the same in 2003, with 110.66% vs 112.29%.
There's another jump between the fourth and fifth, with groups 4th or below gaining by a smaller amount. 121.82% vs 122.85% since 1991, 122.19% vs 124.38% in 1998, 112.29% vs 113.90% in 2003, and 103.34% vs 104.17% in 2008.
It is this critical and growing gap that is causing the current "problems" we are seeing.
Ontario numbers are even more stark.
Between 1991 and 2014 the changed by 82.7%, literally becoming poorer. (I note that these numbers do not seem to include inflation?? they might, but if they don't that's daming)
Gains by the 4th and lower maxed out at 113.9% while the 5th and above were at least 116.2%
So
What does all that mean?
Put simply, that 33% to 40% of Canadians are in a bad way economically.
Groups that once thought of themselves as middle class are seeing the remainder of the middle class pull away from them financially. It's becoming more and more clear that this group is being ignored.
Here is the single key fact I want you all to take away from this.
Trudeau pledged to cut taxes for those making more than $44,700.
The upper limit for income of this 40% group - meaning if you make less than this you are in that group - is as follows
$44,100 in Atlantic Canada
$43,800 in Quebec
$51,200 in Ontario ($39,500 for the 3rd decile)
$62,000 in the Prairies ($46,600 for the 3rd decile)
$47,400 in BC ($36,500 for the 3rd decile)
and
$49,600 Canada Wide ($38,500 for the 3rd decile)
This means that this tax cut does not even touch the 35% of Canadians too poor to qualify.
There was a time where almost anyone could get a job if they tried hard enough. Today that's not the case.
There are, literally, people who are, today, unemployable. They were born with low levels of energy, and so are seen as "lazy". They were not gifted with intelligence, and so are seen as "stupid". They are uncoordinated, make mistakes, and may suffer from mental illness like depression.
Employers don't want these people, and with the labour market the way it is in most cities, they don't need to hire any of them.
They are not unemployed, they are unemployable.
This is something that, while it has existed for some time, has been getting worse since the great recession.
These people make upwards of 10% of the population.
There is another group, who make 20% to 30% of the population who lack skills, who lack experience, who lack training, and who lack, in some cases, the ability to do more complex tasks. These are people who are not only stuck in "dead end jobs", but who truly feel like they will always be stuck in "dead end jobs" and don't have the power to do anything about it.
I don't have exact numbers, but these two groups combined make up between 1/3rd and 2/5ths of the population in Canada, and similar numbers in the USA. These are people who have little to no hope for the future. They look at the changing workforce and see every single job that they are capable of doing being replaced with automation. At the same time they look at people who have stable jobs. Most of these people are older. The median age in Canada is near 40. The last time most of the folks who have the "good jobs" had to apply for a job was prior to the great recession. They lived in a time where if you tried hard enough you could get a job, and therefore, they think this is still the case.
This is no longer the case.
As such, we are currently in, and headed for, a showdown between the 40% who are effectively unemployable, and the 60% who think that if this is the case, it must be the fault of that 40%.
Remember too that this comes at the same time as the shift to new-right and new-left.
If you've read my posts on the New-Right and New-Left before, I uurge you to do so again, as I fix the links and add more detail to some of them.
Politics is changing, and there's now a large minority of the population who, if they are not already, will be becoming enraged that 'the system' is failing them.
Politics is headed to a place it's not between since between WW1 and WW2.
If something is not done within the new few years, in both Canada and the USA, events like this may become commonplace.
Some 'fun' facts:
Between 1976 and 2014 the total increase in average income for all groups combined was 121.65%
Between 1991 and 2014 the increase was 131.02%, as, incomes had fallen between 1976 and 1991.
Here is where it gets interesting.
Since 1991 the change for the lowest decile has been 96.88%. They've been getting poorer. The biggest cut came between 1991 and 1998, and again after 2008.
The second decile has only change 117.84% since 1991. Every richer group changed by at least 121.48% in the same period.
They also changed 120.44% since 1998, while every richer group changed at least 122.19%.
We see the same in 2003, with 110.66% vs 112.29%.
There's another jump between the fourth and fifth, with groups 4th or below gaining by a smaller amount. 121.82% vs 122.85% since 1991, 122.19% vs 124.38% in 1998, 112.29% vs 113.90% in 2003, and 103.34% vs 104.17% in 2008.
It is this critical and growing gap that is causing the current "problems" we are seeing.
Ontario numbers are even more stark.
Between 1991 and 2014 the changed by 82.7%, literally becoming poorer. (I note that these numbers do not seem to include inflation?? they might, but if they don't that's daming)
Gains by the 4th and lower maxed out at 113.9% while the 5th and above were at least 116.2%
So
What does all that mean?
Put simply, that 33% to 40% of Canadians are in a bad way economically.
Groups that once thought of themselves as middle class are seeing the remainder of the middle class pull away from them financially. It's becoming more and more clear that this group is being ignored.
Here is the single key fact I want you all to take away from this.
Trudeau pledged to cut taxes for those making more than $44,700.
The upper limit for income of this 40% group - meaning if you make less than this you are in that group - is as follows
$44,100 in Atlantic Canada
$43,800 in Quebec
$51,200 in Ontario ($39,500 for the 3rd decile)
$62,000 in the Prairies ($46,600 for the 3rd decile)
$47,400 in BC ($36,500 for the 3rd decile)
and
$49,600 Canada Wide ($38,500 for the 3rd decile)
This means that this tax cut does not even touch the 35% of Canadians too poor to qualify.
There was a time where almost anyone could get a job if they tried hard enough. Today that's not the case.
There are, literally, people who are, today, unemployable. They were born with low levels of energy, and so are seen as "lazy". They were not gifted with intelligence, and so are seen as "stupid". They are uncoordinated, make mistakes, and may suffer from mental illness like depression.
Employers don't want these people, and with the labour market the way it is in most cities, they don't need to hire any of them.
They are not unemployed, they are unemployable.
This is something that, while it has existed for some time, has been getting worse since the great recession.
These people make upwards of 10% of the population.
There is another group, who make 20% to 30% of the population who lack skills, who lack experience, who lack training, and who lack, in some cases, the ability to do more complex tasks. These are people who are not only stuck in "dead end jobs", but who truly feel like they will always be stuck in "dead end jobs" and don't have the power to do anything about it.
I don't have exact numbers, but these two groups combined make up between 1/3rd and 2/5ths of the population in Canada, and similar numbers in the USA. These are people who have little to no hope for the future. They look at the changing workforce and see every single job that they are capable of doing being replaced with automation. At the same time they look at people who have stable jobs. Most of these people are older. The median age in Canada is near 40. The last time most of the folks who have the "good jobs" had to apply for a job was prior to the great recession. They lived in a time where if you tried hard enough you could get a job, and therefore, they think this is still the case.
This is no longer the case.
As such, we are currently in, and headed for, a showdown between the 40% who are effectively unemployable, and the 60% who think that if this is the case, it must be the fault of that 40%.
Remember too that this comes at the same time as the shift to new-right and new-left.
If you've read my posts on the New-Right and New-Left before, I uurge you to do so again, as I fix the links and add more detail to some of them.
Politics is changing, and there's now a large minority of the population who, if they are not already, will be becoming enraged that 'the system' is failing them.
Politics is headed to a place it's not between since between WW1 and WW2.
If something is not done within the new few years, in both Canada and the USA, events like this may become commonplace.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
One possible story of what might happen to Doland Trump
I'd recommend a read of this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Mecham#Governorship
the governorship section in particular, to see just one of many ways the Trump presidency could turn out. Here are a few highlights.
" Mecham faced difficulties during much of his term. Because he had run as a political outsider, other Republicans only had party loyalty as a reason to follow the new governor. This lack of strong loyalty made it easy for his support to fall as a series of political gaffes damaged Mecham's popularity."
"Mecham was on poor terms with state lawmakers. He repeatedly asserted that he was under no obligation to cooperate with the legislature, that he was answerable only to the United States Constitution—which, he believed, had been divinely revealed.[31] Several of Mecham's appointments to key executive positions—submitted without consultation with legislative leaders—were found to have highly questionable credentials. Examples included Alberto Rodriguez, his choice to head the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, who was under investigation for murder;[32] the director of the Department of Revenue, whose company was in arrears by $25,000 on employment compensation payments;[21] the proposed supervisor of prison construction, who had served prison time for armed robbery;[33] and a former Marine, nominated as a state investigator, who had been court-martialled twice."
"Mecham made an issue of his relationship with the press. Claiming that many of his problems were caused by media enemies "
"Based on this report, the House began hearings into possible impeachment proceedings on January 19.[48] These resulted in the passing of House Resolution 2002 on February 8 by a vote of 46 to 14"
"arguably, the testimony most damaging to Mecham was his own, during which he repeated his assertion that the Legislature had no authority over him, and berated individual legislators.[31] On April 4, the Senate convicted Mecham on obstruction of justice by a vote of 21 to 9"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Mecham#Governorship
the governorship section in particular, to see just one of many ways the Trump presidency could turn out. Here are a few highlights.
" Mecham faced difficulties during much of his term. Because he had run as a political outsider, other Republicans only had party loyalty as a reason to follow the new governor. This lack of strong loyalty made it easy for his support to fall as a series of political gaffes damaged Mecham's popularity."
"Mecham was on poor terms with state lawmakers. He repeatedly asserted that he was under no obligation to cooperate with the legislature, that he was answerable only to the United States Constitution—which, he believed, had been divinely revealed.[31] Several of Mecham's appointments to key executive positions—submitted without consultation with legislative leaders—were found to have highly questionable credentials. Examples included Alberto Rodriguez, his choice to head the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, who was under investigation for murder;[32] the director of the Department of Revenue, whose company was in arrears by $25,000 on employment compensation payments;[21] the proposed supervisor of prison construction, who had served prison time for armed robbery;[33] and a former Marine, nominated as a state investigator, who had been court-martialled twice."
"Mecham made an issue of his relationship with the press. Claiming that many of his problems were caused by media enemies "
"Based on this report, the House began hearings into possible impeachment proceedings on January 19.[48] These resulted in the passing of House Resolution 2002 on February 8 by a vote of 46 to 14"
"arguably, the testimony most damaging to Mecham was his own, during which he repeated his assertion that the Legislature had no authority over him, and berated individual legislators.[31] On April 4, the Senate convicted Mecham on obstruction of justice by a vote of 21 to 9"
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Gearing down for the winter
Summer and Winter are the political "off seasons" in many ways. The news slows down, and the number of elections does as well.
In short, there is less to react to. This is a great time to make pro-active posts with ideas, suggestions, and deep analysis. I do plan some of that, but right now I'm still coming to terms with the Trump victory, and how to properly analyze things in a post-Trump world.
In short, there is less to react to. This is a great time to make pro-active posts with ideas, suggestions, and deep analysis. I do plan some of that, but right now I'm still coming to terms with the Trump victory, and how to properly analyze things in a post-Trump world.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Quick and Dirty electoral reform proposals
These are for Canada and the United States.
In the United States, separation of powers has caused the Presidency to absorb all of the attention during election time. This is the key aspect that needs fixing. As a result, the simple proposal I have is to replace the Electoral College with Congress.
This means the total number of Senators and House Representatives each party gets will determine which party's candidate wins the Presidency.
It will force the parties to have a consistent policy and to pick someone they can work with.
In Canada, we sort of need the opposite. So much attention is paid to the Prime Minister, we should be electing them directly. Therefore, added to a proportionally elected house, would be a "slate" of candidates.
Each slate would be lead by a candidate for Prime Minister. Each slate would have 34 other members in it, chosen by the party.
All 45 of these candidates would also be running in individual ridings. Like the Montreal system, each of these people would have a "co-candidate" or "running mate" who will take the seat should the person be elected to the Slate and not the Riding.
Canadians would vote not only for MP, but also for which slate they feel should win. The slate elections would be preferential, and whichever slate (and Prime Minister candidate) wins 50%+1 of the vote, gets elected to Parliament in addition to all the MPs.
As a quick and dirty example, lets presume the last election, proportionally, elected 147 Liberals, 118 Tories, and 73 New Democrats. Now lets presume Trudeau's slate wins.
This produces 192 Liberals, 118 Tories, and 73 New Democrats, a very narrow majority.
In effect, if the Prime Minister is able to get 40% of the country to vote for him, he can get a majority in the house. Canadians main concerns about PR is that it would mean endless minority governments; this helps fix that.
In the United States, separation of powers has caused the Presidency to absorb all of the attention during election time. This is the key aspect that needs fixing. As a result, the simple proposal I have is to replace the Electoral College with Congress.
This means the total number of Senators and House Representatives each party gets will determine which party's candidate wins the Presidency.
It will force the parties to have a consistent policy and to pick someone they can work with.
In Canada, we sort of need the opposite. So much attention is paid to the Prime Minister, we should be electing them directly. Therefore, added to a proportionally elected house, would be a "slate" of candidates.
Each slate would be lead by a candidate for Prime Minister. Each slate would have 34 other members in it, chosen by the party.
All 45 of these candidates would also be running in individual ridings. Like the Montreal system, each of these people would have a "co-candidate" or "running mate" who will take the seat should the person be elected to the Slate and not the Riding.
Canadians would vote not only for MP, but also for which slate they feel should win. The slate elections would be preferential, and whichever slate (and Prime Minister candidate) wins 50%+1 of the vote, gets elected to Parliament in addition to all the MPs.
As a quick and dirty example, lets presume the last election, proportionally, elected 147 Liberals, 118 Tories, and 73 New Democrats. Now lets presume Trudeau's slate wins.
This produces 192 Liberals, 118 Tories, and 73 New Democrats, a very narrow majority.
In effect, if the Prime Minister is able to get 40% of the country to vote for him, he can get a majority in the house. Canadians main concerns about PR is that it would mean endless minority governments; this helps fix that.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
A few quick notes
A few point-form thoughts from the last few days.
1 - Marine LePen is likely to win the Presidential elections in France. Not because Trump won, but because the polls said he would not win. I feel the polls in France are also "wrong" and by the same degree; about 4 or 5 points, and that is often all she needs to win.
2 - The AfD in Germany, for the same reasons, could top 20% in the election, or more. They still won't win, but they could push the sitting coalition to a minority. The problem for them, is the only way to push them into a minority is by failing to knock the Liberals out (IE below the threshold) and if that happens, the Liberals are simply likely to sit in the coalition, or, at least, support a good chunk of it from outside the official coalition.
3 - I've always added a personal "gut correction" to the polls, and it's one reason I'm more accurate than others who do projections. I will now add a "trump correction" to properly account for poor working class voters who feel they can't honestly say who they are voting for". This will be applied across the western world.
4 - There are likely to be challenges to Trump's win. People are already suggesting hacking of voting machines. I've taken a look at the results, and the results better match demographics than they do whether or not the county uses voting machines or paper ballots. Regardless, I don't expect any of these challenges to be successful, and, even if they somehow are, it would only push the election to the house, which, given the real election results, is very likely to back Trump.
5 - Similar to points 1 and 2, I expect other "European" elections, like the Netherlands, to see an increase in the vote for "far-right" parties.
1 - Marine LePen is likely to win the Presidential elections in France. Not because Trump won, but because the polls said he would not win. I feel the polls in France are also "wrong" and by the same degree; about 4 or 5 points, and that is often all she needs to win.
2 - The AfD in Germany, for the same reasons, could top 20% in the election, or more. They still won't win, but they could push the sitting coalition to a minority. The problem for them, is the only way to push them into a minority is by failing to knock the Liberals out (IE below the threshold) and if that happens, the Liberals are simply likely to sit in the coalition, or, at least, support a good chunk of it from outside the official coalition.
3 - I've always added a personal "gut correction" to the polls, and it's one reason I'm more accurate than others who do projections. I will now add a "trump correction" to properly account for poor working class voters who feel they can't honestly say who they are voting for". This will be applied across the western world.
4 - There are likely to be challenges to Trump's win. People are already suggesting hacking of voting machines. I've taken a look at the results, and the results better match demographics than they do whether or not the county uses voting machines or paper ballots. Regardless, I don't expect any of these challenges to be successful, and, even if they somehow are, it would only push the election to the house, which, given the real election results, is very likely to back Trump.
5 - Similar to points 1 and 2, I expect other "European" elections, like the Netherlands, to see an increase in the vote for "far-right" parties.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Trump and the Working Class
In 1976, voters under $30K income ($8K income after inflation)
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1976/
split 63-38 for the Democrat.
In 1980, 10,000 becomes the inflation adjusted mark.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1980/
The split was 52% for the democrat, 42% for the Republican, and 6% for Anderson. This race saw Reagan win by a 10 point margin nationwide.
1984 has our mark move to 12,500
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1984/
Regan, who won a 60-40 popular vote split nationwide, took 46% among this group, to Mondale's 54%. Remember, this is with a 20 point victory nationwide.
In 1988, $12,500 = $25,000 after inflation, so, that's not exact, but it's as close as we can get with the poll
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1988/
With a 7 point margin nationwide, the split in our test case group is 63-37 for the Democrat
In 1992, $15K is $25K, and as close as we are going to get.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1992/
The split was 58% for Clinton, 23% for Bush, and 19% for Perot.
1996 is really bad for inflation adjustments.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1996/
$15K = $23K, while $30K = $46K.
The margin in the first group was 60% for the Democrat, 29% for the Republican, and 9% for Perot, while the second group breaks 49%, 41%, and 10%, in the same order.
The infamous 2000 election
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/
still has our inflation problem. $15K=$21K and $30K=$41K
(feel free to check for yourself http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ )
The splits are 58% for Gore and 38% for bush for the first group, and $49%-48% for the second.
Bush actually did somewhat well among the working class. I remember detailed polls from the era showing W. Bush won socially conservative and economically liberal voters, as well as economically conservative and socially liberal voters. This is one reason W. Bush won elections.
In his re-election in 2004
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2004/
Inflation says $15K=19K, and $30K=38K
The splits are 57-42 and 50-49, both won by the Democrats.
Notice that in both W. Bush elections, while he did well among the "upper" working class, he heavily lost the poorer sectors.
Entering the Obama era in 2008
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2008/
We see a massive win for Obama among the poorest, 73-25, and a win among the next group, at 60-37. By this point, inflation becomes less of a concern. $30K then = $34K now.
In 2012, Obama also won these groups.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/
The problem is it all gets lumped in with "under $50K". Despite that, we see a 60-38 victory.
Now we are in 2016.
While this:
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2016/
is currently a dead link, I'm sure in a few months it won't be.
What we can see is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
and this:
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president
The under $30K vote split as follows:
53%-41%
for Clinton.
Trump's strong showing among this group is less important than Clinton's weakness. There is no exact math, due to inflation, national vote margins, and differing groups being polled, but in short, this is the worst the Democrats have done in this group. This is a huge region the Democrats failed to take the Presidency.
If we had seen a more traditional vote split in this group, Clinton would have won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Election.
Trump didn't "Win" this group, but the Democrats certainly "Lost" it. While fighting for reproductive rights, gender equality, transgender rights, gay marriage, racial equity, and undocumented immigrants, the Democrats forgot to fight for the working class. Don't get me wrong, these are all laudable goals, and all things I support. My Twitter avatar - an avatar I use everywhere - currently is from the old "it gets better" campaign, combating suicides by gay teens. This has been my avatar, everywhere, for about 6 years now. I fully support helping all these disadvantaged groups. That does not mean we should stop helping "poor white people", and it is these people who switched from Democrat to Republican and gave Trump that final margin of victory.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1976/
split 63-38 for the Democrat.
In 1980, 10,000 becomes the inflation adjusted mark.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1980/
The split was 52% for the democrat, 42% for the Republican, and 6% for Anderson. This race saw Reagan win by a 10 point margin nationwide.
1984 has our mark move to 12,500
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1984/
Regan, who won a 60-40 popular vote split nationwide, took 46% among this group, to Mondale's 54%. Remember, this is with a 20 point victory nationwide.
In 1988, $12,500 = $25,000 after inflation, so, that's not exact, but it's as close as we can get with the poll
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1988/
With a 7 point margin nationwide, the split in our test case group is 63-37 for the Democrat
In 1992, $15K is $25K, and as close as we are going to get.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1992/
The split was 58% for Clinton, 23% for Bush, and 19% for Perot.
1996 is really bad for inflation adjustments.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1996/
$15K = $23K, while $30K = $46K.
The margin in the first group was 60% for the Democrat, 29% for the Republican, and 9% for Perot, while the second group breaks 49%, 41%, and 10%, in the same order.
The infamous 2000 election
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/
still has our inflation problem. $15K=$21K and $30K=$41K
(feel free to check for yourself http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ )
The splits are 58% for Gore and 38% for bush for the first group, and $49%-48% for the second.
Bush actually did somewhat well among the working class. I remember detailed polls from the era showing W. Bush won socially conservative and economically liberal voters, as well as economically conservative and socially liberal voters. This is one reason W. Bush won elections.
In his re-election in 2004
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2004/
Inflation says $15K=19K, and $30K=38K
The splits are 57-42 and 50-49, both won by the Democrats.
Notice that in both W. Bush elections, while he did well among the "upper" working class, he heavily lost the poorer sectors.
Entering the Obama era in 2008
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2008/
We see a massive win for Obama among the poorest, 73-25, and a win among the next group, at 60-37. By this point, inflation becomes less of a concern. $30K then = $34K now.
In 2012, Obama also won these groups.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/
The problem is it all gets lumped in with "under $50K". Despite that, we see a 60-38 victory.
Now we are in 2016.
While this:
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2016/
is currently a dead link, I'm sure in a few months it won't be.
What we can see is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
and this:
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president
The under $30K vote split as follows:
53%-41%
for Clinton.
Trump's strong showing among this group is less important than Clinton's weakness. There is no exact math, due to inflation, national vote margins, and differing groups being polled, but in short, this is the worst the Democrats have done in this group. This is a huge region the Democrats failed to take the Presidency.
If we had seen a more traditional vote split in this group, Clinton would have won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Election.
Trump didn't "Win" this group, but the Democrats certainly "Lost" it. While fighting for reproductive rights, gender equality, transgender rights, gay marriage, racial equity, and undocumented immigrants, the Democrats forgot to fight for the working class. Don't get me wrong, these are all laudable goals, and all things I support. My Twitter avatar - an avatar I use everywhere - currently is from the old "it gets better" campaign, combating suicides by gay teens. This has been my avatar, everywhere, for about 6 years now. I fully support helping all these disadvantaged groups. That does not mean we should stop helping "poor white people", and it is these people who switched from Democrat to Republican and gave Trump that final margin of victory.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
A good read; why Trump won
This is a great article that I highly recommend reading. It explains, partly, why Trump won. It's written by an immigrant muslim woman single mother who voted for Donald Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/11/10/im-a-muslim-a-woman-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump/?postshare=1941478810231574&tid=ss_tw-bottom
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/11/10/im-a-muslim-a-woman-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump/?postshare=1941478810231574&tid=ss_tw-bottom
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Where I went wrong
I've made a post over on my personal blog as it fits better over there, but it does relate to why my projections have been so far off as of late.
More on the New Left vs the New Right
While I touched on some of the important points here, I don't think I explained things very well.
A few important things to note:
The Culture War was perhaps the first warning sign of a change.
Liberalism, 150 years ago, was much more associated with "big business" and "rich capitalists" than Conservatism was.
What was "Left Wing" 150 years ago was not "Left Wing" 80 years ago. That changed.
What was "Right Wing" 150 years ago was not "Right Wing" 80 years ago. That changed.
Definitions change.
What is Left and Right now (and has been for the better portion of 70-80 years) will no longer be Left and Right in a few decades.
We are in the middle of a transition of the entire meaning of "Left" and "Right"
Some things, like more Free Trade agreements, will become "Left Wing" ideas.
Some things, like supporting the Working Class, will become "Right Wing" ideas.
Socialism, came out of "nowhere" because it arose among a class of people who did not exist.
You and I are almost certainly in the same 'class' of person in our outlook and our position within the "new" right/left split.
With that in mind.
We are seeing the rise of the New Right, and the New Left. Donald Trump, the Front Nationale, even Vladimir Putin, are all on the New Right. The New Left meanwhile is still forming, but people like Justin Trudeau are on it's forefront.
200 years ago the cleve in society was based around who is a person.
80 years ago that cleve was one of class, ownership, wealth, and property.
In the new cleve, the main divide is global vs local.
Global is the new Left.
Local is the new Right.
It will take another 15-25 years before we are fully in this new Left and new Right; but we are going there, and going there fast.
With that in mind, I'm changing the way I do projections and the math I use, to properly account for the New Right and it's organization.
With any luck, the New Left will organize quickly.
A few important things to note:
The Culture War was perhaps the first warning sign of a change.
Liberalism, 150 years ago, was much more associated with "big business" and "rich capitalists" than Conservatism was.
What was "Left Wing" 150 years ago was not "Left Wing" 80 years ago. That changed.
What was "Right Wing" 150 years ago was not "Right Wing" 80 years ago. That changed.
Definitions change.
What is Left and Right now (and has been for the better portion of 70-80 years) will no longer be Left and Right in a few decades.
We are in the middle of a transition of the entire meaning of "Left" and "Right"
Some things, like more Free Trade agreements, will become "Left Wing" ideas.
Some things, like supporting the Working Class, will become "Right Wing" ideas.
Socialism, came out of "nowhere" because it arose among a class of people who did not exist.
You and I are almost certainly in the same 'class' of person in our outlook and our position within the "new" right/left split.
With that in mind.
We are seeing the rise of the New Right, and the New Left. Donald Trump, the Front Nationale, even Vladimir Putin, are all on the New Right. The New Left meanwhile is still forming, but people like Justin Trudeau are on it's forefront.
200 years ago the cleve in society was based around who is a person.
80 years ago that cleve was one of class, ownership, wealth, and property.
In the new cleve, the main divide is global vs local.
Global is the new Left.
Local is the new Right.
It will take another 15-25 years before we are fully in this new Left and new Right; but we are going there, and going there fast.
With that in mind, I'm changing the way I do projections and the math I use, to properly account for the New Right and it's organization.
With any luck, the New Left will organize quickly.
Local races
I've been looking through the local races.
Two big issues were marijuana and minimum wages.
Arizona rejected legal pot, but California, Nevada, Maine, and Massachusetts, all approved it.
Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, and Florida, either introduced or expanded medical marijuana.
In South Dakota, voters rejected lowering the minimum wage, while in Maine, Arizona, Washington, and Colorado, voters all increased the minimum wage.
There were a few other measures that caught my eye.
Alabama approved "right to work" laws, which limit the power of labour unions.
South Dakota rejected a non-partisan election commission.
Nevada approved expanding gun background checks.
And Oklahoma approved perhaps the most poorly worded option, Allow Any Execution Method. I don't expect any "executions by nuclear bomb" any time soon, as the measure specifically prevents the deaths from being "cruel or unusual" but the wording of this ballot measure could have been better.
One thing that was quite clear from the local races was the blue states got bluer while the red states got redder. This map is still a work in progress, but:
You'll also notice that this seems to be the definition of "blue state" and "red state"
Which highlights the problem Democrats face in the long term.
I'll be posting tomorrow about how this will impact things in Europe.
Two big issues were marijuana and minimum wages.
Arizona rejected legal pot, but California, Nevada, Maine, and Massachusetts, all approved it.
Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, and Florida, either introduced or expanded medical marijuana.
In South Dakota, voters rejected lowering the minimum wage, while in Maine, Arizona, Washington, and Colorado, voters all increased the minimum wage.
There were a few other measures that caught my eye.
Alabama approved "right to work" laws, which limit the power of labour unions.
South Dakota rejected a non-partisan election commission.
Nevada approved expanding gun background checks.
And Oklahoma approved perhaps the most poorly worded option, Allow Any Execution Method. I don't expect any "executions by nuclear bomb" any time soon, as the measure specifically prevents the deaths from being "cruel or unusual" but the wording of this ballot measure could have been better.
One thing that was quite clear from the local races was the blue states got bluer while the red states got redder. This map is still a work in progress, but:
You'll also notice that this seems to be the definition of "blue state" and "red state"
I'll be posting tomorrow about how this will impact things in Europe.
What happened.
After my last post, I decided to lie down and watch the coverage a bit.
It hit me what happened. And why. And how.
I harken back to my earlier post and this section in particular:
How could this happen? Well to answer that, and why common sense makes no sense, we need to look at who is voting for Trump, and who we are.Who is "we"? Well I am Teddy. I'm 32, and I spend, in an average day, at least 14 hours online. I do most of my socializing online, get most of my entertainment online, and get most of my news from online sources. I am 'very' connected to the internet. I am a progressive, who is very socially tolerant. I also live in poverty.Who are you? Well I don't know for sure, I don't have specific demographics of my readers, but I do have a guess. You are 28. You are male, and live in the Greater Toronto area. You make less than $40,000 a year, but more than $20,000 a year. You spend at least 6 hours every day online, and get the plurality of your news, socializing, and entertainment online as well. You, like me, are very socially tolerant, and are likely more left-wing than I am.While no one specific reader will hit all those marks, my general guess is that you are not too far off from this person.You and I have a few things in common.1 - Due to our age, neither of us are heads of our own large families.2 - Due to our income levels, neither of us tend to socialize with those who make many times more than we do3 - Due to our interests (the internet) we have a very high tendency to meet others who are equally connected to the online world.So what does all of this mean?In short, there is a group of people who we are disconnected with. They are older, at least 40, white men, who have children, are married, are conservative, and are likely religious. They are concerned about immigration (in large part because they don't know any immigrants personally, and any they see professionally, are almost certainly in the lower part of the working class, and as such, much less likely to be fluent in english) and these are people who, when all is said and done, are less educated than 'our' group.They are, to boil it down to (perhaps offensive and) simple terms, old men who are afraid of change.The problem (for our group) is that there are a lot of people like this out there, and they live a life that's almost as different from ours as is possible within the same culture.In past elections, this has not been a huge issue. These people, and their concerns, split them among the candidates. Sure they were always going to favour the right-wing candidate, but that was always taken into account. The problem, it seems, is that rather than splitting 2-3, or 3-5, they are going overwhelmingly for the same candidate. They are also bringing their friends along; social groups they are not fully in, but are connected to.Due to their nature of being offline folk, their arguments never get to us, and ours never get to them.These are the 'uneducated working class whites' we've heard so much about.There is a real possibility that due to their previous candidate splitting and low turnout, that we are not properly counting them in the polls.
I've spoken from time to time on this idea of a "New Left" and "New Right". Here is one place I speak about it. Here is another.
======
Edited, the proper links, (both link to the same article), the second is:
http://thenewteddy.blogspot.ca/2016/07/new-left-and-new-right-vs-old-left-and.html
Also here is a post I made in 2012 on a forum on this topic
Between 1900 and 1940 there was a great shift in what Left and Right meant for the political spectrum.
Prior to this, Left was allowing women the vote, allowing non-property owners to vote, allowing non-Christians to vote even, while Right was standing up for the powers that existed.
After this, Left was for Socialism, redistribution of wealth, giving money to the poor, larger governments with larger supports, so on and so forth.
Left and Right is changing again. The old left-right argument is over. We found a balance that works. There is a new left-right argument out there.
In the old Left, the Green Party of Canada is moderate and somewhat centrist. In the new Left, the Greens are firmly left-wing. The new Left is about a Global unity of ideology, doing for others, working for the world and the community, thinking universally, ignoring national boundaries, and so forth. The new Right is perfectly exemplified by the things Harper stands for. His stances on Kyoto, Abestos, the Environment at large, the Gun Registry, etc, are all firmly in the new right, even if they fit the old right as well.
Our system is changing. Look at Canadian elections and UK elections for example. From 1960 to 1990 both countries had instances where we only had 3 parties in the chamber. Compare this to elections in both countries from both 1930's and today, and you'll see the growth in parties and ideologies, etc. Our entire worldwide political system is changing, and that is why there is so much apparent chaos. The Tea Party VS Occupy debates are not just last vestiges of the old system; they are the founding sparks of the new system, and this will be the new left-right debate.
======
The short of it is this.
110 years ago, we had a left wing and a right wing.
The Right Wing was conservative and Conservative. The Left Wing was liberal and Liberal. Big issues were things like prohibition, women's suffrage, alms for the poor, and other 'turn of the century' issues.
Suddenly, out of nowhere, a new group came. The Socialists. Labour.
They wanted public ownership, abolition of poverty, and redistribution of wealth.
Many socialists were labourers, who worked in factories.
If you were an "everyday" person back in 1906, you would be baffled by this new movement. It does not fit into anything that you understand in politics. Sure it seems left-wing, but it is just odd.
Within 20 years, everything had changed.
The Liberals were gone, or, had gobbled up a lot of these crazy socialist ideas. The Conservatives were now for all those things the old Liberal party wanted, while remaining conservative in nature.
The old left and old right had been replaced by the new left and new right.
People like Justin Trudeau are on the new left. For quite some time now I've been trying to outline exactly what the new left is. For one thing, it's pro-trade, and seemingly is pro-big-business. I've understood the new left pretty well as I see it all around me in my social circle.
That's when it hit me.
Who were all these people who voted for Trump?
Who are all these folks who wanted Brexit?
Who keeps voting for the "far-right" nationalistic parties in Europe?
The New Right.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Donald Trump to win
I literally have to debate if I've lost faith in democracy. I might well have done so.
Regardless, Trump will win. I'm not sure how, not sure what states he will take, or if he will even win 270 or 269; but when a new president is sworn in on January 20th 2017, I'm saying that the new President will be Donald Trump.
I may need some days off.
Regardless, Trump will win. I'm not sure how, not sure what states he will take, or if he will even win 270 or 269; but when a new president is sworn in on January 20th 2017, I'm saying that the new President will be Donald Trump.
I may need some days off.
USA: Early Projection Update
Disclaimer: this is no guarantee of future updates throughout the night.
Senate: To go Democrat
House: Democrats will gain seats
Yukon - A unique look at electoral reform
With only 19 ridings, and under 40K residents, the Yukon is an excellent (read: small and easy) area to examine.
This may be a series of posts due to my attention being segmented on today, US election day, but lets begin with proportional representation.
Somehow, for reasons I don't fully understand, people assume that proportional representation means one proportional district including everything. This is terribly uncommon on the national, and even some subnational levels.
The Yukon in particular is divided between "Rural" and "Whitehorse" areas. I've taken care to look at the vote by poll, and taken the Whitehorse polls. This basically means all "Whitehorse Ridings" plus 1 poll in an otherwise "Rural Riding".
As such I'm keeping the current split in Yukon ridings, 11 Whitehorse seats and 8 Rural seats. I do, however, note that even in 2 of these 8 seats, Whitehorse is within the commutershed; meaning the area where you can drive in to town every day and home every day. It's generally intended for working folk, but it can apply to people in schools or even just shopping. It means that roughly 25% of the "rural" area is so close to Whitehorse that one could argue it should be included within it; but, I am going to keep the boundary as close to the official municipal boundaries as possible.
I've decided to use the same thresholding method with largest remainders I've used before, as that's easiest to calculate.
RURAL BALLOTS CAST (8 ridings) 6,320 votes (703 threshold)
2447 LP (3) 2109
2216 YP (3) 2109
1570 ND (2) 1406
49 GP
38 IND
RURAL
3L-3Y-2N
WHITEHORSE BALLOTS CAST (11 ridings) 12,467 votes (1134 threshold)
4957 LP (4) 4536
4056 YP (3) 3402
3358 ND (2) 2268
96 GP
Remainders (2)
421 LP
654 YP (1)
1090 ND (1)
96 GP
WHITEHORSE
4L-4Y-3N
As such the new Legislature would look like this:
7 Liberals
7 Yukon Party
5 New Democrats
More posts to come!
This may be a series of posts due to my attention being segmented on today, US election day, but lets begin with proportional representation.
Somehow, for reasons I don't fully understand, people assume that proportional representation means one proportional district including everything. This is terribly uncommon on the national, and even some subnational levels.
The Yukon in particular is divided between "Rural" and "Whitehorse" areas. I've taken care to look at the vote by poll, and taken the Whitehorse polls. This basically means all "Whitehorse Ridings" plus 1 poll in an otherwise "Rural Riding".
As such I'm keeping the current split in Yukon ridings, 11 Whitehorse seats and 8 Rural seats. I do, however, note that even in 2 of these 8 seats, Whitehorse is within the commutershed; meaning the area where you can drive in to town every day and home every day. It's generally intended for working folk, but it can apply to people in schools or even just shopping. It means that roughly 25% of the "rural" area is so close to Whitehorse that one could argue it should be included within it; but, I am going to keep the boundary as close to the official municipal boundaries as possible.
I've decided to use the same thresholding method with largest remainders I've used before, as that's easiest to calculate.
RURAL BALLOTS CAST (8 ridings) 6,320 votes (703 threshold)
2447 LP (3) 2109
2216 YP (3) 2109
1570 ND (2) 1406
49 GP
38 IND
RURAL
3L-3Y-2N
WHITEHORSE BALLOTS CAST (11 ridings) 12,467 votes (1134 threshold)
4957 LP (4) 4536
4056 YP (3) 3402
3358 ND (2) 2268
96 GP
Remainders (2)
421 LP
654 YP (1)
1090 ND (1)
96 GP
WHITEHORSE
4L-4Y-3N
As such the new Legislature would look like this:
7 Liberals
7 Yukon Party
5 New Democrats
More posts to come!
USA: Election Day - Projection
This is the most likely outcome. Why? Well that's actually a bit more difficult to explain, but in short, because I really hope it is.
For Trump to win we would need to make a few core assumptions about America, and the average voter. Assumptions that go beyond the borders of the US, and impact voters in most developed democracies around the world. Many of these assumptions are very discomforting.
1 - That voters don't really care about how good or bad of a job that a particular candidate can do, they simply want someone who will "stand up" for them, even if that person destroys the country in the process.
2 - That voters are far, far more racist than we think. It goes beyond race even to culture. It implies that people feel that the culture of others is something to be "defeated" rather than empathized with.
3 - That voters are just plain stupid idiots who can be easily fooled by flash and panache, and that they care more that a policy 'feels' like it 'should' work, and less if the evidence says it does.
4 - That voters are willing to let people get away with disgusting behavior so long as the person in question is someone with whom they agree.
5 - And that voters are simply unwilling to listen to evidence, no matter how strong that evidence is.
Lets tackle some of these.
#5 alone can outright kill people. Crime policy, level of social funding, and health administration.
#2 and #4 in conjunction can explain why real dictators can and do manage levels of popular support.
#1, #3, and #5 together imply Democracy does not work, at all.
#3, and #4 imply that people can easily be fooled by those with the know-how and resources
#1 and #5 show that voters can willingly and purposefully harm another group in society, on purpose, because of refusal to accept facts (this partly explains the holocaust)
#2, #3, and #5 are how the various "reign of terror" periods in world history begin
#1 and #4 explain corruption
And #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 in combination, say one simple thing:
Your fellow human being is a disgusting dangerous idiot who could easily and purposefully hurt you if you upset them, and there's not a damned thing you can do to stop it.
This is a very, very horrible world to live in, and it's certainly not one I want to live in. I also don't believe it is the world we live in.
For that reason, I an projecting a Clinton victory.
PS - If any Trump state is wrong on this map, it's Ohio, and if any Clinton state is wrong, it's Florida.
PS - If any Trump state is wrong on this map, it's Ohio, and if any Clinton state is wrong, it's Florida.
Yukon Election - Results
Results are in the map
Liberal Majority. Premier unseated in his own riding.
Liberal Majority. Premier unseated in his own riding.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Morning post time
It's come to my attention that polls can open as early as 6am (local to me) in some parts of the US. As such, I'm going to update my morning post time to 5:59am.
Final Update (sort of)
This will be the final update, in a way. Tomorrow morning prior to the vote I will not be presenting a new map. Rather, I will be reposting one of the many maps I am about to post, and arguing why I've chosen that one.
There are, in fact, 3 different maps I have, and I will be showing why each makes sense.
First, Common Sense:
Based on common sense, and no math, this will be the results of the election. Of course, the math says something far different.
Common sense tells us that an openly racist candidate, who openly admits to abusing their own power (grab her by the pussy), who tells lies at every rally, and who is a warmonger, should do very poorly.
Instead, most Republicans hate Clinton because they think *she* is someone who abuses her own power, tells lies at every rally, and is a warmonger.
It boggles the mind and makes little sense, hence the above projection. What's notable is that every election until now in the US could be easily explained by common sense. There have been a few elections in Europe that were unexplainable using common sense, Poland's most recent election is one of them, and the simple level of support the far-right parties get is another issue.
It seems in the past few years all around the world, common sense has gone out the window, and has been replaced with hatred and racism.
As such, the above, will not happen.
So what will happen?
One of two things.
First, Trump may win:
How could this happen? Well to answer that, and why common sense makes no sense, we need to look at who is voting for Trump, and who we are.
Who is "we"? Well I am Teddy. I'm 32, and I spend, in an average day, at least 14 hours online. I do most of my socializing online, get most of my entertainment online, and get most of my news from online sources. I am 'very' connected to the internet. I am a progressive, who is very socially tolerant. I also live in poverty.
Who are you? Well I don't know for sure, I don't have specific demographics of my readers, but I do have a guess. You are 28. You are male, and live in the Greater Toronto area. You make less than $40,000 a year, but more than $20,000 a year. You spend at least 6 hours every day online, and get the plurality of your news, socializing, and entertainment online as well. You, like me, are very socially tolerant, and are likely more left-wing than I am.
While no one specific reader will hit all those marks, my general guess is that you are not too far off from this person.
You and I have a few things in common.
1 - Due to our age, neither of us are heads of our own large families.
2 - Due to our income levels, neither of us tend to socialize with those who make many times more than we do
3 - Due to our interests (the internet) we have a very high tendency to meet others who are equally connected to the online world.
So what does all of this mean?
In short, there is a group of people who we are disconnected with. They are older, at least 40, white men, who have children, are married, are conservative, and are likely religious. They are concerned about immigration (in large part because they don't know any immigrants personally, and any they see professionally, are almost certainly in the lower part of the working class, and as such, much less likely to be fluent in english) and these are people who, when all is said and done, are less educated than 'our' group.
They are, to boil it down to (perhaps offensive and) simple terms, old men who are afraid of change.
The problem (for our group) is that there are a lot of people like this out there, and they live a life that's almost as different from ours as is possible within the same culture.
In past elections, this has not been a huge issue. These people, and their concerns, split them among the candidates. Sure they were always going to favour the right-wing candidate, but that was always taken into account. The problem, it seems, is that rather than splitting 2-3, or 3-5, they are going overwhelmingly for the same candidate. They are also bringing their friends along; social groups they are not fully in, but are connected to.
Due to their nature of being offline folk, their arguments never get to us, and ours never get to them.
These are the 'uneducated working class whites' we've heard so much about.
There is a real possibility that due to their previous candidate splitting and low turnout, that we are not properly counting them in the polls.
The final possibility is that these people are not as split as we think. In short, the venom spewed at Clinton is so great, that it's suppressing her real numbers; and the polls somewhat agree with this as odd as it sounds. As such, our final possibility is a Clinton win:
The exact margin is still unclear. Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida are all very close contests. New Hampshire, Maine's 2nd district, Ohio, Iowa, and Arizona are all much more safe. Utah is also somewhat safe, having swung back to Trump as voters started to weigh McMullin, Trump, and Clinton, and consider it a 3-party race.
This scenario bears out what we've been seeing in early voting. A much higher turnout among hispanics, and a strong turnout among registered Democrats. Unlike the groups that back Trump, groups that back Clinton are far more likely to be completely disconnected from pollsters, neither having a landline telephone, nor being a heavy user of the english speaking internet.
This projection basically assumes the polls are right. As a base assumption that's not always such a bad guess.
Clinton has lead in the poll averages for just about the entire election, and was expected to win far in advance of the election itself. The Republican Party is divided against itself, and the Republicans in the Senate have already started planning for a possible Clinton Presidency.
This projection is much easier to explain because it makes more sense. It's even possible that if the polls are over-estimating Trump, that we could see victories in places like Georgia, South Carolina, Nebraska's 2nd district, and Texas; this is, however, unlikely.
Lastly you may have noticed I've left lots of space for recording electoral votes for people who may not even be on the ballot. This is because I fully expect post-election absurdity, as that many electors may try to single-handedly change the result of the election itself. If nobody wins a majority of electoral votes, this would force the vote to the new House and new Senate, and in the latter, the Democrats may have a majority.
It's also possible that with two candidates who are, or are almost 70, that one or both of them may pass away between the popular vote tomorrow and the casting of electoral ballots on December 19th.
Or, something else could happen between then and the counting of the ballots on January 6th.
As such, this map is designed to help get us through that period of time should something unexpected happen.
Tomorrow morning at 7:30am, I will post which of these I feel is the most likely, and why.
There are, in fact, 3 different maps I have, and I will be showing why each makes sense.
First, Common Sense:
Common sense tells us that an openly racist candidate, who openly admits to abusing their own power (grab her by the pussy), who tells lies at every rally, and who is a warmonger, should do very poorly.
Instead, most Republicans hate Clinton because they think *she* is someone who abuses her own power, tells lies at every rally, and is a warmonger.
It boggles the mind and makes little sense, hence the above projection. What's notable is that every election until now in the US could be easily explained by common sense. There have been a few elections in Europe that were unexplainable using common sense, Poland's most recent election is one of them, and the simple level of support the far-right parties get is another issue.
It seems in the past few years all around the world, common sense has gone out the window, and has been replaced with hatred and racism.
As such, the above, will not happen.
So what will happen?
One of two things.
First, Trump may win:
How could this happen? Well to answer that, and why common sense makes no sense, we need to look at who is voting for Trump, and who we are.
Who is "we"? Well I am Teddy. I'm 32, and I spend, in an average day, at least 14 hours online. I do most of my socializing online, get most of my entertainment online, and get most of my news from online sources. I am 'very' connected to the internet. I am a progressive, who is very socially tolerant. I also live in poverty.
Who are you? Well I don't know for sure, I don't have specific demographics of my readers, but I do have a guess. You are 28. You are male, and live in the Greater Toronto area. You make less than $40,000 a year, but more than $20,000 a year. You spend at least 6 hours every day online, and get the plurality of your news, socializing, and entertainment online as well. You, like me, are very socially tolerant, and are likely more left-wing than I am.
While no one specific reader will hit all those marks, my general guess is that you are not too far off from this person.
You and I have a few things in common.
1 - Due to our age, neither of us are heads of our own large families.
2 - Due to our income levels, neither of us tend to socialize with those who make many times more than we do
3 - Due to our interests (the internet) we have a very high tendency to meet others who are equally connected to the online world.
So what does all of this mean?
In short, there is a group of people who we are disconnected with. They are older, at least 40, white men, who have children, are married, are conservative, and are likely religious. They are concerned about immigration (in large part because they don't know any immigrants personally, and any they see professionally, are almost certainly in the lower part of the working class, and as such, much less likely to be fluent in english) and these are people who, when all is said and done, are less educated than 'our' group.
They are, to boil it down to (perhaps offensive and) simple terms, old men who are afraid of change.
The problem (for our group) is that there are a lot of people like this out there, and they live a life that's almost as different from ours as is possible within the same culture.
In past elections, this has not been a huge issue. These people, and their concerns, split them among the candidates. Sure they were always going to favour the right-wing candidate, but that was always taken into account. The problem, it seems, is that rather than splitting 2-3, or 3-5, they are going overwhelmingly for the same candidate. They are also bringing their friends along; social groups they are not fully in, but are connected to.
Due to their nature of being offline folk, their arguments never get to us, and ours never get to them.
These are the 'uneducated working class whites' we've heard so much about.
There is a real possibility that due to their previous candidate splitting and low turnout, that we are not properly counting them in the polls.
The final possibility is that these people are not as split as we think. In short, the venom spewed at Clinton is so great, that it's suppressing her real numbers; and the polls somewhat agree with this as odd as it sounds. As such, our final possibility is a Clinton win:
The exact margin is still unclear. Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida are all very close contests. New Hampshire, Maine's 2nd district, Ohio, Iowa, and Arizona are all much more safe. Utah is also somewhat safe, having swung back to Trump as voters started to weigh McMullin, Trump, and Clinton, and consider it a 3-party race.
This scenario bears out what we've been seeing in early voting. A much higher turnout among hispanics, and a strong turnout among registered Democrats. Unlike the groups that back Trump, groups that back Clinton are far more likely to be completely disconnected from pollsters, neither having a landline telephone, nor being a heavy user of the english speaking internet.
This projection basically assumes the polls are right. As a base assumption that's not always such a bad guess.
Clinton has lead in the poll averages for just about the entire election, and was expected to win far in advance of the election itself. The Republican Party is divided against itself, and the Republicans in the Senate have already started planning for a possible Clinton Presidency.
This projection is much easier to explain because it makes more sense. It's even possible that if the polls are over-estimating Trump, that we could see victories in places like Georgia, South Carolina, Nebraska's 2nd district, and Texas; this is, however, unlikely.
Lastly you may have noticed I've left lots of space for recording electoral votes for people who may not even be on the ballot. This is because I fully expect post-election absurdity, as that many electors may try to single-handedly change the result of the election itself. If nobody wins a majority of electoral votes, this would force the vote to the new House and new Senate, and in the latter, the Democrats may have a majority.
It's also possible that with two candidates who are, or are almost 70, that one or both of them may pass away between the popular vote tomorrow and the casting of electoral ballots on December 19th.
Or, something else could happen between then and the counting of the ballots on January 6th.
As such, this map is designed to help get us through that period of time should something unexpected happen.
Tomorrow morning at 7:30am, I will post which of these I feel is the most likely, and why.
America's Final Day - Good Morning
The final day of the campaign:
This evening I'll present full analysis, thought, and commentary.
This evening I'll present full analysis, thought, and commentary.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
USA - 2 days to go (morning)
Clinton swings
The reality is the 'swing states' shown on the map are all very competitive. The problem for Trump is if he wants to win he really need to win all of them.
The reality is the 'swing states' shown on the map are all very competitive. The problem for Trump is if he wants to win he really need to win all of them.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
USA: 3 days to go
Trump ahead for the first time this election according to my projection
Starting tomorrow, I will be making 2 updates a day, at 7:30am and 7:30pm.
Starting tomorrow, I will be making 2 updates a day, at 7:30am and 7:30pm.
Friday, November 4, 2016
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Senate: a new way to look at things
A quick post.
Given recent developments, I've decided to present the party standings in the Senate (here in Canada) in a new way.
With the growth of non-partisans, the main dividing lines may become geographic. As the non-partisans have yet to form any sort of crossbench, I've decided to run with the geographic idea.
I've also tried to distinguish the non-partisans based on who appointed them, generally assuming that those appointed by Liberals would lean left, and those by Tories would lean right. I also made a final adjustment for Senators who have expressed their own previous partisan opinions, such as Anne Cools, who had been keen on Harper at one point in time.
As such, I present to you the current party standings in the Senate:
There is still some refinement work to do, but in general, I am happy with how this has turned out.
Given recent developments, I've decided to present the party standings in the Senate (here in Canada) in a new way.
With the growth of non-partisans, the main dividing lines may become geographic. As the non-partisans have yet to form any sort of crossbench, I've decided to run with the geographic idea.
I've also tried to distinguish the non-partisans based on who appointed them, generally assuming that those appointed by Liberals would lean left, and those by Tories would lean right. I also made a final adjustment for Senators who have expressed their own previous partisan opinions, such as Anne Cools, who had been keen on Harper at one point in time.
As such, I present to you the current party standings in the Senate:
There is still some refinement work to do, but in general, I am happy with how this has turned out.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
USA: 6 days to go
There seems to be a concerted effort by some in the FBI to elicit a Trump victory. Some Trump states have solidified. Current Projection:
I remind that 270 is the benchmark for victory.
I remind that 270 is the benchmark for victory.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Yukon Election, possible prediction
I'm loathe to even bother to try to predict elections this far north. I always say that about 1,000 voters in any given riding; be it Vuntut Gwitchin, or all of Italy, will vote based on local concerns and will therefore not be able to easily predict using the math I normally use to forecast elections. The problem is that in the Yukon, no riding cast more than 1,000 ballots in the last election. As such, these elections are very "local" in nature, especially in rural areas.
Despite that, I have had a number of people ask me what I think will happen. As such I present my Prediction:
Remember, this is a "Prediction" and not a "Projection". In short, it's educated guesswork, and is far less based on math, and thus, far more likely to be "very wrong"
Regardless, this is where things seem to be headed at this time.
Despite that, I have had a number of people ask me what I think will happen. As such I present my Prediction:
Remember, this is a "Prediction" and not a "Projection". In short, it's educated guesswork, and is far less based on math, and thus, far more likely to be "very wrong"
Regardless, this is where things seem to be headed at this time.
USA: 7 days to go
I will do my best to have daily posts between now and the election. Today's projection is as follows:
Trump has closed in a few states, but this may simply be a bump from recent scandal, one that will vanish in the next few days.
29 states are "locks" which means they will not be changing unless something huge happens (like the death of a candidate) For Clarity, the non "locks" are as follows:
Solid Clinton:
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
Strong Clinton:
Maine
Wisconsin
Leaning Clinton:
Nevada
Florida
Solid Trump:
Kansas
Indiana
South Carolina
Strong Trump:
Texas
Missouri
Alaska
Nebraska District
Leaning Trump:
Maine District
Arizona
Iowa
Ohio
North Carolina
Georgia
Leaning McMullin:
Utah
Leaning Faithless Elector:
Washington District
I suspect each day at least one state will be added to the "locks".
For the Democrats, the chance is lower, as many Democrats seem more comfortable with Clinton than Republicans do with Trump. However, Sanders may still get up to 5 faithless electors. One in Washington (where there are penalties against this) 3 in Vermont, and 1 somewhere else, perhaps New Hampshire or Minnesota, states he won in the primaries by healthy margins.
The Republicans could see more. I wouldn't put it past Indiana to vote as a bloc for Pence as President. In fact, if nobody wins a majority in the Electoral College on election night, I guarantee that Indiana will vote as a bloc for Pence. Why? Well this puts Pence in the running in Congress for President. Regardless of the margin, Idaho, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas also voted against Trump in the Primaries; all voted for Cruz, and he could gain up to 3 votes from faithless electors from these states.
Utah meanwhile might be chaos even if Trump wins the state. More than any other state, I could see the Utah electors agreeing to vote as a bloc. Even if Trump wins the state, they may decide to vote for McMullin anyway. More likely is they would vote for another candidate like Mitt Romney or Governor Gary Herbert, or perhaps even someone else.
It's also possible that electors will simply spoil their ballots. I could see up to 3 Democrats, and 6 Republicans doing so. In the end, I don't expect more than 8 faithless Democratic electors, or 25 faithless Republican electors (save those from Utah) and I do not see any of the electors voting for the candidate from the other party.
Imagine for example that Trump wins around 275-280 votes on Election Night. Between the election and the official reading of the electoral ballots, in January, Trump continues to do foolish things. The Republicans in Congress decide that they can't just let Trump become President. Since the margin is under a dozen, they hatch a plan. Mike Pence will be given just enough Electoral College votes to put him in third. This works. Congress then meets and votes for Pence to become President. Pence is also named as Vice President, but since he can not do both, the Vice Presidency is declared Vacant.
Now imagine the Democrats win the Senate. They won't simply give a free pass to Pence's suggestion for VP. As such, an agreement is hatched. The Democrats will back a Republican for the Supreme Court, someone who is fairly moderate, who would not overturn abortion, but who would probably vote with the right-wing on many other issues. In return, the Democrats will get to select a Vice President. Clinton is out, she won't play second fiddle, and the Republicans wouldn't have her. Tim Kaine is possible, and would be a strong contender, but I think most Republicans would see him as a possible future threat, and that making him VP would boost his chances of beating Pence in the 2020 election. As such, they select Bernie Sanders, who they see as too elderly to pose a threat in 2020.
The end result? President Mike Pence, Vice President Bernie Sanders, A Moderate Republican on the Supreme Court, Paul Ryan as House Speaker, and Harry Reid as Senate Majority leader.
29 states are "locks" which means they will not be changing unless something huge happens (like the death of a candidate) For Clarity, the non "locks" are as follows:
Solid Clinton:
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
Strong Clinton:
Maine
Wisconsin
Leaning Clinton:
Nevada
Florida
Solid Trump:
Kansas
Indiana
South Carolina
Strong Trump:
Texas
Missouri
Alaska
Nebraska District
Leaning Trump:
Maine District
Arizona
Iowa
Ohio
North Carolina
Georgia
Leaning McMullin:
Utah
Leaning Faithless Elector:
Washington District
I suspect each day at least one state will be added to the "locks".
With so much hate for both candidates, we may end up seeing a mass of faithless electors. The map below shows the states where there are little to no restrictions on whom electors may vote for. Other states have restrictions on the practise, or, make it outright illegal.
For the Democrats, the chance is lower, as many Democrats seem more comfortable with Clinton than Republicans do with Trump. However, Sanders may still get up to 5 faithless electors. One in Washington (where there are penalties against this) 3 in Vermont, and 1 somewhere else, perhaps New Hampshire or Minnesota, states he won in the primaries by healthy margins.
The Republicans could see more. I wouldn't put it past Indiana to vote as a bloc for Pence as President. In fact, if nobody wins a majority in the Electoral College on election night, I guarantee that Indiana will vote as a bloc for Pence. Why? Well this puts Pence in the running in Congress for President. Regardless of the margin, Idaho, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas also voted against Trump in the Primaries; all voted for Cruz, and he could gain up to 3 votes from faithless electors from these states.
Utah meanwhile might be chaos even if Trump wins the state. More than any other state, I could see the Utah electors agreeing to vote as a bloc. Even if Trump wins the state, they may decide to vote for McMullin anyway. More likely is they would vote for another candidate like Mitt Romney or Governor Gary Herbert, or perhaps even someone else.
It's also possible that electors will simply spoil their ballots. I could see up to 3 Democrats, and 6 Republicans doing so. In the end, I don't expect more than 8 faithless Democratic electors, or 25 faithless Republican electors (save those from Utah) and I do not see any of the electors voting for the candidate from the other party.
Imagine for example that Trump wins around 275-280 votes on Election Night. Between the election and the official reading of the electoral ballots, in January, Trump continues to do foolish things. The Republicans in Congress decide that they can't just let Trump become President. Since the margin is under a dozen, they hatch a plan. Mike Pence will be given just enough Electoral College votes to put him in third. This works. Congress then meets and votes for Pence to become President. Pence is also named as Vice President, but since he can not do both, the Vice Presidency is declared Vacant.
Now imagine the Democrats win the Senate. They won't simply give a free pass to Pence's suggestion for VP. As such, an agreement is hatched. The Democrats will back a Republican for the Supreme Court, someone who is fairly moderate, who would not overturn abortion, but who would probably vote with the right-wing on many other issues. In return, the Democrats will get to select a Vice President. Clinton is out, she won't play second fiddle, and the Republicans wouldn't have her. Tim Kaine is possible, and would be a strong contender, but I think most Republicans would see him as a possible future threat, and that making him VP would boost his chances of beating Pence in the 2020 election. As such, they select Bernie Sanders, who they see as too elderly to pose a threat in 2020.
The end result? President Mike Pence, Vice President Bernie Sanders, A Moderate Republican on the Supreme Court, Paul Ryan as House Speaker, and Harry Reid as Senate Majority leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)