薔薇語

Here is a small ReasonTV article about a protest against the DNC. "No Hillary," said another woman. "Never Hillary. She is the 1 percent and also she is a warmonger." Perhaps some of the vilification the Democrats have done of the wealthy and more militarily adventurous politicians is coming back to bite them in the rear when their candidate is a member of the militarily adventurous 1 percent. Soar.

It would seem that Rep Schultz was booed while trying to give a speech. . It was two minutes of cringe before she left. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4qlPkJ9puY It would also seem that Senator Sanders was also booed heavily the moment he tried to endorse Sec. Clinton. I really do see a significant number of his constituency either not voting for / voting against Sec. Clinton. Soar.

Appeals to loyalty are not as common nor.as effective among traditional liberals. When asked about why some act is right or wrong, liberals appeal more to issues of harm, oppression, and a bit of propotionality in fairness. Messages that stress those virtues also play better. Appeals to authority or in group loyalty or sacredness are less attractive to them. Likewise, hard core libertarians are far more invested in oppression and proportional fairness. This is one of the central points of moral foundation theory by Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind. Sec. Clinton could make a case with wider appeal in a Republican race that she must stick behind DWS because 'duh!’. Not that it has no appeal in Democratic circles, but it would not be as widely appealing. Soar.

So? Isn't that exactly what someone in the GOP would want? Or folks who simply dislike Sec. Clinton or want her to President? I am not seeing the issue here for why, when Sec. Clinton does something with such terrible optics of corruption, why someone would not use that as a political tool. My point about the Presidency was that in four years, the sting of the issue would go away and be trumped by other policy issues and scandals that would be more pressing than one that occurred four years ago. Soar.

Perhaps this is the case. Perhaps post-convention this becomes a non news story. But I think it will not simply go away. Sec. Clinton has been attacked as standard corrupt politician with an air of nepotism. Trump, his campaign, or the various Anti-Sec. Clinton PACs just need to drive home the idea of Crony and Nepotistic politician with targeted ads. Ones that discuss how Rep. Schultz work to dismiss the Secretary's biggest challenger. How she still refuses to release her Wall-street speech transcripts*, and various shady practices that have funneled money to the Clinton Foundation and vise versa. These needn't be things that actually increase Trump's voter turnout. They might have that function but I kind of doubt it. But if they are targeted to Democratic / Progressive / Liberal voters, they could suppress turn out and / or increase turnout for Dr. Stein or Gov. Johnson. *Of note on this point: I think it would be a suicidal move for the Trump campaign to push this narrative, but any campaign or PAC against Sec. Clinton and Trump both could push this style message. Ultimately I think it was a tone deaf message. I think it would have been far better to disavow Rep. Schultz (possibly bad politically and obviously personally) or simply to ignore the event and neither help nor hinder the Rep. Then help her out if Sec. Clinton gains the presidency. She would have 4 years of news to quell any issues related to such quid-pro-quo actions. Perhaps if Sec. Clinton was running in a Republican race, she could make a strong conservative claim towards "loyalty" and "in-group protection" but such messages don't play well to Liberally minded folks. Soar.

Rep Schultz has resigned as DNC chair. The wiki-leaks scandal has gone a good way in tarnishing her already bad reputation with many Democrats. She has also been hired on by Sec. Clinton in her Presidential Campaign (big surprise? ) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN1040TO Soar.

Do you mean "which candidate is losing votes", then the answer per a previous 538 link I posted would suggest it is from both Sec. Clinton and Trump. Soar.

Gov. Gary Johnson is now at 13% a CNN poll, 12% in a CBS poll, and 11% in an NBC poll. A small uptick post convention. Soar.

Good Trailer. I look forward to its release. Maybe we will get it before Christmas 2017 here... Soar.

Johnson is likely to be pulling equally from both parties. The same group found that when his name is added to polls, Sec. Clinton's lead does not increase (might decrease). This implies that he is not solely taking votes from Trump. Soar.

Conventional logic: "A vote for the third party is actually a vote for the bad candidate." Since this is a pervasive belief, and I most certainly will not be following it, allow me a moment to attempt to express why. 1 - It just feels wrong Perhaps a bit trite to some but gut feelings are important. Voting for someone I really dislike just to stop someone I hate leaves a terrible taste in my mouth. Have you ever played in a game where you were sent back in time and given the unfortunate task of saving some rather evil person just because their death might be worse? Not that you knew it would but simply suspected it would. How did it make your character and you the player feel? Pretty terrible I would imagine. That is the kind of feeling I get during the election cycle. 2 - It vastly underestimates the system we have There have been a predictably high number of power hungry presidents in our short history. Ones that have grown the Presidency ever more. But no matter how power hungry one is, there are still limitations on them. The necessity of consensus does exist. It is what prevents President Obama from getting legislation through the Senate. It is what bogged down the process in the President Bush years. Consensus is hard to achieve even in the best of year, it is nigh impossible with politically charged candidates. Why this really matters here more than perhaps any other election cycle is that the two main party candidates are not well liked, especially Trump. Assuming for a moment you, the reader, are in the #NeverClinton camp: think about how unlikely it is for her to completely flip the Senate to a super majority. She might, and I stress the weakness of that might, flip the senate and house blue, but this still leaves a lot of chance for the Republicans to slow down or block legislation and in two years there will be a referendum vote in the House that disfavors the then current administration. There is very little chance that she will be enacting any legislation that is truly offensive to your sensibilities. Assuming for a moment you are in the #NeverTrump camp: He will not be flipping the Senate to a super majority and might even lose power in congress. Many legislators in his own party are terribly against him. Most of the most offensive legislative policies ascribed to him will not survive Congress or the Courts. He will be an island unto himself. He also has a long history of flipping on policy ideas. He is just as likely to support traditional Dem legislation as traditional Rep legislation. Ultimately, neither candidate is likely to walk in with a solid majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. It takes that level of mandate to affect extreme and immediate change - otherwise things will just be slow messes. 3 - the traditional logic has gotten us here I think this is perhaps the most overlooked bit. To Melania a quote: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result." For most people it seems like the next presidential candidate of their and their opponents party is worse than the last. People are always complaining about holding their nose while voting. So the conventional logic has brought us only conventional outcomes. You can not expect to break that cycle by embracing its tenants. 4 - Voting third party actually makes the third party far stronger than you realize - even if they lose. Most people are not aware of how hard it is to get ballot access in most states. The Libertarian Party struggles every year to maintain access in most states. While not every state has this rule, many do: if you can achieve 2 percent of a vote in an area, you are automatically given access to all those areas. So, if a Libertarian Candidate for the 8th House district gets 2 percent, Libertarians are guaranteed ballot access to the 8th house seat and all other elected office in that area. If our gubernatorial candidate gets 2%, then we get access to ALL races. Same for president. By voting for a third party candidate, even in small numbers, you are opening up election cycles to vast numbers of candidates in the next cycle. And when a party, Green or Libertarian can focus on message and elevating one candidate rather than doing that also while having to canvas and fund raise to be granted ballot access. This directly rejects Dan Savage's comments from earlier - even if Dr. Stein loses, if she gains a non-trivial vote share, the Green Party in states as far flung as Missouri get a major boost to their ability to run. No longer would they have to canvas across the state's many districts gathering signatures just to have a chance to run, they could just run! 5 - If there is no threat that you will leave the bargaining table, your bargaining partner doesn't have to respect your wishes. If a constituency is guaranteed to vote for a candidate even though they vehemently disagree one some key policies, that candidate never has to adjust their views on that policy. The same goes in reverse. Sec. Clinton doesn't really have to worry about earning the black vote or the environmentalist vote. She knows full well that those three blocks will absolutely vote for her. We can see this in her major speeches. She does give the occasional lip service to issues in the black communities and environment, but normally as opposition counterpoints: vote for me because Trump is racist / hates puppies. But she very rarely puts for positive policy ideas (I will do this! VS He will do that!). But where is this not true? Wall-street, Immigration, and trade policy. She is putting forth a lot of views of what she wants to accomplish in terms of Wall-street and trade policy reform because she needs to sure up Senator Sander's supporters and gain white middle-class voters. On immigration she is a bit wishy washy but that is because conventional wisdom says the latino block has moved largely democratic so she can defocus on it a bit. Senator Sander's supporters are getting commitments from Sec. Clinton not because she values their views, but because there is a chance they will stay home / vote third party / vote TRUMP! If the black community could push that point more, they would see greater movement. 6 - Ultimately it is about point 1. While I obviously think the reasons I stated are good, they won't change anyone's mind. The only thing that can is your heart. Do you feel clean when you hold your nose to vote? Do you feel honest and committed to yourself? Use a bit of social-psychology on yourself when you go to vote. Bring a small pocket mirror and a picture of a younger you. Before and as you cast your vote, look deep into that mirror at yourself. At the end of the day, we will only ever do what we can square away with subconscious self image - nothing else. Soar.

Donald Trump has just ended his speech. It was competently delivered. I think it struck all the needed points it needed to to win his crowd at first glance. I look forward to seeing how Secretary Clinton responds to it next week. As a special nod, I think his daughter's introduction was very well done both in terms of notes hit and presentation. Soar.

In addition to the push for 15, the LP and Green parties are involved in a lawsuit against the presidential debate commission. The current rules are claimed to violate anti-trust laws by establishing an entrance criteria too extreme to be managed. The LP ticket has national ballot access and could not only get enough votes but achieve an electoral college victory. Despite this, they are not given automatic access. Here is a quick article from Reason about this: Article. Soar.

Just a funny meme for Gov. Gary Johnson and Gov. Weld. Soar.

Okay. I found an article about it at Reason While that might help, I don't think it will really boost Gov. Johnson's numbers. The overlap between Senator Cruz and Gov. Johnson would seem to be very small. Perhaps they might do it as a protest, though. Soar.

What did Senator Cruz say? Soar.

I have only encountered Dan Savage a limited number of times. He generally seemed like a lovely gent. I think maybe he was having a bad day when he had that rant. I can't speak for the Green Party but I can speak for the Libertarian party of a bit when it comes to claims about 'building from the ground up and not just running a Presidential candidate every four years'. The Libertarian party is in all 50 states. We run candidates in most every federal and state election. I have been a Libertarian sitting on local county commissions (a voluntary board that submits recommendations to elected folks). The Libertarian party is perhaps more active in national, state, and local politics than a lot of folks realize. I think Savage also vastly over calculates potential downsides. And I think that is part of why people tune out some of the rhetoric or run towards the target of that hate. "What? You think Trump / Sec. Clinton is the next Hitler?! Well, I guess I have no choice but to be a Nazi to prove your dumb-ass wrong!" Soar.

Perhaps. That is most certainly the traditional message on these things. And perhaps that explains why Dr. Stein only has a limited following (she is unlikely to be swaying any traditional conservative voters). But there has been a variety of folks discussing this issue. Here is a 538 article. In essence, when third party candidates are included, the lead that Sec. Clinton has decreases. Also, disaffected Senator Sanders supporters are more inclined to vote for third party candidates when they are included in polls. This seems to imply that the traditional narrative of "upset Republican" is not accurate this time around. So, it would seem that Gov. Johnson is pulling equally from both or possibly more greatly from Secretary Clinton. On the spectrum of "traditional left" values, being Anti-war (war in the middle east and war on drugs) are two major stances that Gov. Johnson embraces that Sec. Clinton doesn't / only if strongly poll tested. The typical "but Libertarians want scorched earth environmental policies" cry is deflected by Johnson's more liberal policies in that arena. And trigger issues like Abortion put Gov. Johnson more in the Liberal camp than the Conservative camp. Soar.

Governor Gary Johnson and Gov. Weld are now at 13 percent in a CNN poll. Cracked the teens! They are at 11% in an NBC poll and 10% in a CBS poll. Perhaps Trump and his supporters can put their foot far enough in their mouths to gin up a few more percent. Perhaps Secretary Clinton can have a yet another scandal appear leading into the convention to drive a couple more percent. Soar.

He has gone from being in the low single digits a few months ago to 10-12% in several polls. And yes, as I understand it, it is an average of several different polls that is required. But making up a 3-4 percent is about on pace with what he has done so far. This is also amazing compared to his last run in 2012 where he achieved a far smaller percentage leading up to the vote and post vote of less than 1 percent nationwide. Plus, I think a fairly strong case can be made that the governing body will have to allow him in if he is actually hitting 15% in any national polls. The optics of denying a platform to someone who is hitting 15% in a poll will be terrible. It will likely draw people into asking Sec. Clinton and Trump about their views on it which will be a very hard soundbite to sell. Indeed, it might become a political tool of either of them. Sec. Clinton is still struggling in some states and might see Gov. Johnson as a way of draining conservative and conservative leaning independents away from Trump. And Trump might see him as a way of bring a wedge between the disaffected Libs and Sec. Clinton in the Anti-trump movement. Soar.

Instead of voting against someone this election cycle, maybe we could all choose to vote "for" someone. Seems like a novel idea but I think it has real potential. I personally am voting "for" Gov. Gary Johnson. More than the other Libertarian Candidates I have seen, I really align with him on the vast majority of issues. He is a centrist Libertarian who believes in change but managed change. A "give less a chance" rather than a "All or nothing" person. And unlike some other ones, (Rep. Barr comes to mind), he is actually fairly liberal on some issues rather than just conservative light. Even if you are not a particular fan of Gov. Gary Johnson but are a fan of more open debates and having a larger diversity of voices, I would recommend claiming that you will vote for Gov. Gary Johnson if you are ever questioned by a pollster. He is almost in the teens in public polling and if he can hit a 15% poll result, he will have a strong case for demanding to be on stage with Sec. Clinton and Trump. Soar.

See, doesn't that version just make you feel better down at your core. ^^ Soar.

That sounds like post-facto rationlization. We needn't qualify our own virtues as being circumstantial. To Melania a quote "Be the change you want to see". Soar.

I often hear cries from people on the net that far too many right wingers, anti-feminist, sexist, bigots use physical looks as a legitimate criticism against people they disagree with. More exaggerated versions of "don't listen to her. She is just a fat cow!" People rightfully point out how meaningless and unhelpful such comments are. The head of Fox News has been accused of a laundry list of inappropriate and likely illegal sexual acts against many women over his career. The execs at FOX have given him a single chance to walk away from the company or be fired. He might also be facing real legal consequences for the acts he is accused of. Soar.

Trump: I really hope that Trump does not become president. I do not think he will be competent leader and think he will only further hurt the US's standing economically, socially, militarily, and politically. But, if he were to become president, I do not think it will be the end of the world. Far too often people seem to take this "X or death" kind of view of voting. Trump will not be the first time we have had an incompetent president, the first time we have had a racist president, the first time we have had a hawkish president, or any of the other negatives we ascribe to him. He will likely be a bad president. But no matter how bad we feel he will be, the US will carry on. President Obama, for all his rhetoric and support, struggled to achieve much. So, I do not have cnonfidence that somehow Trump, who will have very little support in the congress will be able to affect any change. Actually, perhaps having a Trump Presidency will inspire some actual legislative compromise and unity. Perhaps a Trump Presidency will get Congress and the Supreme Court off their arses and start devolving power from the presidency. "What, you want to go to war with No-where-astan? Well, the new congress asserts you can't deploy any troops without our approval first." or "Yeah, the whole spying on US citizens and political opponents is an out-dated Trumpianism, so we decided to revoke such powers and rule that congress needs to give explicit authority to do that rather than executive powers single-handedly asserting they have the power." Do I think Trump will be a bad president? Yes. Do I think a Trump presidency will be the end of the US? No. Not by a long shot. This kind of campaign rhetoric is akin to why the "remain" camp in the UK was called "project fear". And it is amazing how, when spoken down to over and over with a message of fear, the electorate will start to see the speakers as simple partisan hacks who are not to be trusted no matter how well intentioned they are. -- As to the First Lady case: who cares? Seriously, it is a first lady's speech. It isn't like Ms. Trump wrote the speech or likely had ever heard First Lady Michelle's speech, she just delivered a generic "We work hard to instill values" speech. I like a good speech as next as the next person, but I would have never remembered that Fist Lady Michelle gave such a generic speech. This is just petty partisan bickering to me. Soar.