While no scandal, no matter how big or small, seems to stick to "Teflon" Don Trump, Hillary Clinton has not had that same ability. The Clinton email scandal will not go away, no matter how much we're all, like Bernie Sanders said eight (!) months ago, "sick of hearing about [her] damn emails." A new report by internal investigators has come out, and this gives a good chance to take a renewed look at the scandal.
The email scandal came about as a result of the investigation into an entirely different "scandal," if you could call it that. The eighth (!) Congressional committee looking into the actions of Benghazi were not making much headway until they discovered that Clinton had used a private email and server while she served as Secretary of State. Long story short, she eventually had to release her emails from that server, and her and her attorneys determined which were "personal" and which were "work-related." The personal ones were deleted, though the server was given to investigators. The State Department has released almost all of those roughly 31,000 work-related emails to the public.
Note I said "almost." As of now, roughly 22 of those emails have been deemed "top secret" and others have earned some sort of "classified" designation. But Clinton has been proven correct when she states that the emails were not "classified" at the time she sent them. These have been designated classified and top secret after the fact. Further, it's hard to build a criminal case for distributing classified content when the prosecutors would have to prove both knowledge (She knew these were classified, which is hard to prove in this case) and intent.
She's also right that Secretaries of State past had also had similar set-ups. The most recent report showed that Colin Powell did ALL of his email correspondence on a private, commercial email account. There was a consistency in the Department of State to skirt record keeping, have leaders avoid using government emails, and so on.
Quick pair of asides: First, while we can't say her private email and server were never hacked, it is true to say that the State Department has been — a couple of times. Second, I've only seen one possible explanation as to the "why do all this?" of a private server/email: the Clinton family has always had their privacy under intense scrutiny, whether Whitewater or Lewinsky, and a natural reaction is to try to wall yourself off. I can see that.
However, just because others in your position have done something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Also, she had sent out an email to other State leaders reminding them to do official business on government servers for record-keeping purposes. She's admitted that having a personal server/email was a mistake, but that's kind of like getting your hand caught in the cookie jar and then apologizing. It was wrong and she knew it was wrong.
The recent report found that Clinton "did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." She broke policy -- not a law, but a policy. That's not criminal. If this were any organization other than federal government, it would be handled internally. Slap on the wrist, undergo some training, don't do it again, get back to work. That's the scope that I think we have lost here -- unless some criminal charges come down the pike, this is ultimately a minor issue.
However, it has stuck around, and I think it's for two reasons: expectations and the allure of the unknown. Donald Trump has been found to be a prolific liar, has been inconsistent about darn near everything, has very few actual policy positions, and has been dismissive when these concerns are brought up. But we don't expect Donald Trump to tell the truth — he's Donald Trump! Perhaps one of the reasons this sticks to Clinton is because, as the more serious candidate, we expect more out of her, but find that she's no angel. The second reason is something I used to say to people when I was a reporter: If answers aren't forthcoming, people tend to assume. We don't know for sure that the emails Clinton deemed personal actually were. Those that trust her believe they are. But those who don't trust her don't know one way or the other, so they make assumptions. This is the trust portion
So what does it all mean? I liked this line from a CNN opinion writer (who was against Clinton): "...the reality appears to be nuanced in a way that is satisfying to neither side." I like to summarize the case as a twist on his conclusion: Clinton didn't break the law, but she didn't do the right thing, either.
Summary Judgments
Here's an incredible story by Maggie Koerth-Baker, about Moore, Okla. Why does it seem to get hit by so many large tornadoes? Is there something to that? She does a lot of good research, mixing both anecdotal and scientific evidence. Great story. • • • I've been stuck working from home for the last two days because I've had the kids' hand, foot and mouth disease. It's too bad Halloween isn't closer. I could go as Dalmatian Man or Leprosy Patient. (Not really... but it's kind of how this makes you feel.)
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Friday, May 20, 2016
Use Your Words
Lately, I've found myself telling the kids to "use your words" when they are crying or whining or being generally unclear of what they mean. Further, I saw this excellent video by the Vlog Brothers (John and Hank Green) about the history of the "Non-Denial Denial" in our politics.
And that's brought me back to the tools of my trade: Words. Words and their meaning are incredibly powerful. Words can build up or tear down; words can be crafty, clever, hurtful, damaging, insulting, rude, insightful, uplifting, frustrating, and generous. But let's face it: in the political season, most of the time words are weapons. And if we're going to use words like weapons, then we need to make sure our tools are refined and not clumsily wielded. If we're going to use name-calling as political statement, I want to know why we choose that word.
Let me give one example, not because he's the only one throwing accusations, but because he's the most prominent. I've been trying to find why exactly Donald Trump believes Hillary Clinton is a "liar" and "crooked." For starters, I googled "Why Trump Calls Clinton a Liar" and went until the 10th page to find specifics. One linked to a story in which Trump called her "guilty" and "Everything about her is a big, fat, beautiful lie." The reporter inferred it was a reference to Benghazi and her email scandal, but Trump's actual words were not specific.
As far as I can tell, Trump has only personally given two specific instances of Hillary (not Bill) lying: 1) Whether she carries hot sauce in her purse 2) Whether Trump's words were used in an ISIS recruiting video. And if those two are your only stated reasons why she's a liar, they're pretty weak.
On the former issue, Hillary has said (in interviews dating back to at least 2008) she's carried hot sauce with her since her husband's 1992 race. A 2012 Wall Street Journal piece mentioned that she used Tabasco sauce on her food. If she's lying, then she's been planting the seeds of a long con for at minimum 8 years — and all for the added benefit of ... winning some African-American votes, I guess? That she was probably going to win anyway? Occam's Razor tells me this probably isn't a lie.
The second issue is more straightforward. At the time Hillary made her statement, that Trump had been used in ISIS recruiting videos (Dec. 2015), he was right — she lied. There was no evidence at the time she made the statement of his words/image/video being in ISIS recruiting videos. However, that's no longer the case. A few weeks later and again in March, ISIS used Trump clips in recruiting videos. So although she was wrong at the time of her statement, she ended up being right.
So of his two specific claims of lies, one probably wasn't a lie, and the other was at the time but now isn't. If you want to believe that Hillary Clinton lies, that's fine — most politicians do, and there are plenty of reasons to back up your belief. But use your words and be specific. Because if words are like a sword, then a sharper weapon is always better than a dull one.
Electoral College Update
This week, polls have given both the GOP and the Democrats reason to be excited about their November prospects. Anyway, while the usual caveats for polls being too early and all before I get into this: One Fox News poll showed Trump slightly ahead (though a New York Times/CBS poll shows Clinton ahead by 6). Certainly, there's been a bit of a bump lately for Trump, but that's also because he's locked up his nomination — candidates tend to get a bump after they secure the nomination. Clinton hasn't quite locked it in yet, so she has yet to see the bump. The good news for the GOP is that Trump has seen a bump and appears in striking distance. The bad news for the GOP are the two new battlegrounds: Arizona and Georgia.
Arizona and Georgia should be strong GOP states, but their demographics are changing. Arizona is becoming more Hispanic, and Georgia is becoming more African-American. Trump is strongly unpopular among those two demographics. The latest polls from those two states show that Trump has a lead, but it's slight and within the margin of error. As I mentioned in past posts, Trump has to win several "blue states" in order to win the presidency — but that also means retaining all the "red states." Arizona and Georgia may signal some trouble on the retention front.
If you start with the states ranked "safe" or "solid" according to Cook Political Report, then Clinton leads 217 delegates to Trump's 163 in the race to 270. That means everything else (CO, FL, NV, PA, VA, WI, IA, NC, NH, Nebraska's 2nd district, OH, AZ and GA) is a "battleground." If you add in any of those that have voted the same in every election after 1990, add another 30 delegates to Clinton's total (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).
And if that's the starting point, Trump CANNOT lose Florida and its 29 delegates or the race is over before you look at any other battlegrounds. If a Trump presidency scares you, then don't worry yet — he has a long way to go.
Summary Judgments
I haven't been running lately because of my cough (earlier in the week) and then taking care of kids sick with hand, foot and mouth disease (later in the week). I'm going to resume running next week, and that'll keep my on track with my June 11 race. I'm going to repeat the week of 2.5 mile runs, because I don't feel I did well that week because of coughing and because I haven't run for two weeks. • • • I've spent a lot of time building block towers lately, mainly so Evie can destroy them. I like to imagine the towers are built by the poor people of Tokyo, who keep having to rebuild after Godzilla-Evie destroyed their last building. So they try architectural changes and different approaches to see if they can avoid the wrath of the Destructor. Yet it never works. In my obviously overactive mind, the people of Tokyo are some resilient folks.
And that's brought me back to the tools of my trade: Words. Words and their meaning are incredibly powerful. Words can build up or tear down; words can be crafty, clever, hurtful, damaging, insulting, rude, insightful, uplifting, frustrating, and generous. But let's face it: in the political season, most of the time words are weapons. And if we're going to use words like weapons, then we need to make sure our tools are refined and not clumsily wielded. If we're going to use name-calling as political statement, I want to know why we choose that word.
Let me give one example, not because he's the only one throwing accusations, but because he's the most prominent. I've been trying to find why exactly Donald Trump believes Hillary Clinton is a "liar" and "crooked." For starters, I googled "Why Trump Calls Clinton a Liar" and went until the 10th page to find specifics. One linked to a story in which Trump called her "guilty" and "Everything about her is a big, fat, beautiful lie." The reporter inferred it was a reference to Benghazi and her email scandal, but Trump's actual words were not specific.
As far as I can tell, Trump has only personally given two specific instances of Hillary (not Bill) lying: 1) Whether she carries hot sauce in her purse 2) Whether Trump's words were used in an ISIS recruiting video. And if those two are your only stated reasons why she's a liar, they're pretty weak.
On the former issue, Hillary has said (in interviews dating back to at least 2008) she's carried hot sauce with her since her husband's 1992 race. A 2012 Wall Street Journal piece mentioned that she used Tabasco sauce on her food. If she's lying, then she's been planting the seeds of a long con for at minimum 8 years — and all for the added benefit of ... winning some African-American votes, I guess? That she was probably going to win anyway? Occam's Razor tells me this probably isn't a lie.
The second issue is more straightforward. At the time Hillary made her statement, that Trump had been used in ISIS recruiting videos (Dec. 2015), he was right — she lied. There was no evidence at the time she made the statement of his words/image/video being in ISIS recruiting videos. However, that's no longer the case. A few weeks later and again in March, ISIS used Trump clips in recruiting videos. So although she was wrong at the time of her statement, she ended up being right.
So of his two specific claims of lies, one probably wasn't a lie, and the other was at the time but now isn't. If you want to believe that Hillary Clinton lies, that's fine — most politicians do, and there are plenty of reasons to back up your belief. But use your words and be specific. Because if words are like a sword, then a sharper weapon is always better than a dull one.
Electoral College Update
This week, polls have given both the GOP and the Democrats reason to be excited about their November prospects. Anyway, while the usual caveats for polls being too early and all before I get into this: One Fox News poll showed Trump slightly ahead (though a New York Times/CBS poll shows Clinton ahead by 6). Certainly, there's been a bit of a bump lately for Trump, but that's also because he's locked up his nomination — candidates tend to get a bump after they secure the nomination. Clinton hasn't quite locked it in yet, so she has yet to see the bump. The good news for the GOP is that Trump has seen a bump and appears in striking distance. The bad news for the GOP are the two new battlegrounds: Arizona and Georgia.
Arizona and Georgia should be strong GOP states, but their demographics are changing. Arizona is becoming more Hispanic, and Georgia is becoming more African-American. Trump is strongly unpopular among those two demographics. The latest polls from those two states show that Trump has a lead, but it's slight and within the margin of error. As I mentioned in past posts, Trump has to win several "blue states" in order to win the presidency — but that also means retaining all the "red states." Arizona and Georgia may signal some trouble on the retention front.
If you start with the states ranked "safe" or "solid" according to Cook Political Report, then Clinton leads 217 delegates to Trump's 163 in the race to 270. That means everything else (CO, FL, NV, PA, VA, WI, IA, NC, NH, Nebraska's 2nd district, OH, AZ and GA) is a "battleground." If you add in any of those that have voted the same in every election after 1990, add another 30 delegates to Clinton's total (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).
And if that's the starting point, Trump CANNOT lose Florida and its 29 delegates or the race is over before you look at any other battlegrounds. If a Trump presidency scares you, then don't worry yet — he has a long way to go.
Summary Judgments
I haven't been running lately because of my cough (earlier in the week) and then taking care of kids sick with hand, foot and mouth disease (later in the week). I'm going to resume running next week, and that'll keep my on track with my June 11 race. I'm going to repeat the week of 2.5 mile runs, because I don't feel I did well that week because of coughing and because I haven't run for two weeks. • • • I've spent a lot of time building block towers lately, mainly so Evie can destroy them. I like to imagine the towers are built by the poor people of Tokyo, who keep having to rebuild after Godzilla-Evie destroyed their last building. So they try architectural changes and different approaches to see if they can avoid the wrath of the Destructor. Yet it never works. In my obviously overactive mind, the people of Tokyo are some resilient folks.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
How to Tell From A Headline If It Is Biased
We often see things we want to agree with or fight. The Buzzfeed-ification of news makes it hard to tell which headlines are objective and which aren't. Luckily, there are a few words that almost always reveal a news source's bias. And when a news source has bias, it's probably smart to ignore the contents of the story. Here is a simple — and incomplete — list of headline words that indicate bias, with a link of an example for most:
Truth Bomb, Eviscerates, Destroys, Demolishes, Furious, Decapitates, Shreds, Outraged, anything containing a normal word in capital letters, Losing Its Mind, Peddled, Remarkably, Ruined, Owns (for individuals), Haters, Shuts Down (for individuals), and Shamers. Send me a comment on Facebook or on the post here if you have more.
Name of the Year Results
It's over. And Pope McCorkle III is your 2016 Name of the Year. He's a Duke University public policy professor who goes by "Mac." So how did my first predictions go? Not bad, actually.
Bulltron Regional
When last we visited, I had predicted 2 of the 4 teams from this region in the Sweet 16. 1-seed Tillmann Buttersack (who I had picked to lose earlier) edged out Brodarious Hamm to move to the regional finals. Likewise, Onno Hoes (who I'd also picked to fall) edged Furious Carney, one of my personal favorites. So I didn't pick either of the Bulltron finalists. Tillmann Buttersack would ride its 1-seed to the Final Four
Sithole Regional
I'm pretty proud of this one. Like the Bulltron, I only picked two of the four. Pope McCorkle III (my pick) won a close match with the overachieving Saint Schwing. Also, Dick Tips (my other pick) had no problem with Scholastique Koolimo. So I picked one of the Sithole finalists (I had Dick Tips losing in the Sweet 16), and I picked the winner: Pope McCorkle III. Not bad.
Dragonwagon Regional
I missed the winner, but I'm OK with that. I correctly called the Dr. Shark Bird-Taco Pope matchup, and I think that was the best matchup of the entire tournament. I picked Dr. Shark Bird and was wrong, but that's such a good pairing that I am kind of zen about it. I correctly picked Howdy Goudey to win in the bottom half and lose to the Dr. Shark Bird-Taco Pope winner.
Chrotchtangle Regional
Short and sweet: I only picked one of the four Sweet 16 names, Sweet Orefice. But I correctly picked that she'd win and represent the Chrotchtangle in the Final Four.
Final Four
I picked two of the Final Four: Pope McCorkle III and Sweet Orefice. I even picked Pope McCorkle III to make the finals (!). I did not expect Sweet Orefice to beat the eventual Taco Pope-Dr. Shark Bird winner, but she did. It turned out to be a pretty solid finals: Pope McCorkle III and Sweet Orefice. Pope McCorkle III pulled out the win. What a great year of names.
Facebook Trending Topics
Facebook has been accused by an anonymous former worker of suppressing conservative news from the "Trending Topics" portion of its site. Already, the Senate GOP has sought answers from Facebook. This is really a silly conversation to have, and the GOP senators should know better.
Let's go down the rabbit hole a bit here. Let's say that the conservative suppression happened, even though Facebook denies it and there's only an anonymous source or two backing it up. So what? The government cannot, should not and will not intervene in a private media company's news judgment decisions. 1) That'd mean the government decides what's fair and not fair to print. 2) If the government interjects itself in Facebook's news decisions, what's to stop them from doing the same with the New York Times or the Washington Post? 3) If you're wanting to be "fair," then why not do the same for Fox News or Huffington Post? Any objective analysis shows those two have differing news priorities. 4) Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said, that it's "just a matter of transparency and honesty, and there shouldn't be any attempt to mislead the American public." Please. If politicians would only take their own advice!
Summary Judgments
I found this story to be a pretty well-researched, good analysis of the electoral college outlook. • • • Edible, chicken-flavored nail polish is apparently something a real company (KFC) decided should exist. • • • Beware unverified cute stories: This story about a 15-year-old Canadian boy who found a lost Mayan city sounds incredible. And it would be — if true. But so far, there's little to back it up, and people who know more about it — Mayan experts — doubt the discovery. • • • I'm fond of Drew Magary's yearly message to college graduates, because they're the sort of tough but honest talk you don't often hear. This year's is no exception. It's foul-mouthed, but has a great point about "safe spaces" and human decency. • • • I haven't been running this week. I've had bad allergies and a lingering cough. Last week I ran 2.5 miles three times, but the third time ended with a cough-induced "upheaval," so I've decided to take it easy until the cough is gone. I'll probably be OK next week. • • • We're kind of introducing the idea of the potty to Evie. She's been saying potty-related words lately, so one day after she said "Peepee" a couple of times and grabbed at her diaper, Alyson took her into the potty. After a minute or so, Alyson turned on the water for encouragement, and it worked! She peed in the potty! Of course, Curious Roland then stuck his hand in it, so it wasn't all roses. She hasn't done it since then, but it was a surprising start.
Truth Bomb, Eviscerates, Destroys, Demolishes, Furious, Decapitates, Shreds, Outraged, anything containing a normal word in capital letters, Losing Its Mind, Peddled, Remarkably, Ruined, Owns (for individuals), Haters, Shuts Down (for individuals), and Shamers. Send me a comment on Facebook or on the post here if you have more.
Name of the Year Results
It's over. And Pope McCorkle III is your 2016 Name of the Year. He's a Duke University public policy professor who goes by "Mac." So how did my first predictions go? Not bad, actually.
Bulltron Regional
When last we visited, I had predicted 2 of the 4 teams from this region in the Sweet 16. 1-seed Tillmann Buttersack (who I had picked to lose earlier) edged out Brodarious Hamm to move to the regional finals. Likewise, Onno Hoes (who I'd also picked to fall) edged Furious Carney, one of my personal favorites. So I didn't pick either of the Bulltron finalists. Tillmann Buttersack would ride its 1-seed to the Final Four
Sithole Regional
I'm pretty proud of this one. Like the Bulltron, I only picked two of the four. Pope McCorkle III (my pick) won a close match with the overachieving Saint Schwing. Also, Dick Tips (my other pick) had no problem with Scholastique Koolimo. So I picked one of the Sithole finalists (I had Dick Tips losing in the Sweet 16), and I picked the winner: Pope McCorkle III. Not bad.
Dragonwagon Regional
I missed the winner, but I'm OK with that. I correctly called the Dr. Shark Bird-Taco Pope matchup, and I think that was the best matchup of the entire tournament. I picked Dr. Shark Bird and was wrong, but that's such a good pairing that I am kind of zen about it. I correctly picked Howdy Goudey to win in the bottom half and lose to the Dr. Shark Bird-Taco Pope winner.
Chrotchtangle Regional
Short and sweet: I only picked one of the four Sweet 16 names, Sweet Orefice. But I correctly picked that she'd win and represent the Chrotchtangle in the Final Four.
Final Four
I picked two of the Final Four: Pope McCorkle III and Sweet Orefice. I even picked Pope McCorkle III to make the finals (!). I did not expect Sweet Orefice to beat the eventual Taco Pope-Dr. Shark Bird winner, but she did. It turned out to be a pretty solid finals: Pope McCorkle III and Sweet Orefice. Pope McCorkle III pulled out the win. What a great year of names.
Facebook Trending Topics
Facebook has been accused by an anonymous former worker of suppressing conservative news from the "Trending Topics" portion of its site. Already, the Senate GOP has sought answers from Facebook. This is really a silly conversation to have, and the GOP senators should know better.
Let's go down the rabbit hole a bit here. Let's say that the conservative suppression happened, even though Facebook denies it and there's only an anonymous source or two backing it up. So what? The government cannot, should not and will not intervene in a private media company's news judgment decisions. 1) That'd mean the government decides what's fair and not fair to print. 2) If the government interjects itself in Facebook's news decisions, what's to stop them from doing the same with the New York Times or the Washington Post? 3) If you're wanting to be "fair," then why not do the same for Fox News or Huffington Post? Any objective analysis shows those two have differing news priorities. 4) Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said, that it's "just a matter of transparency and honesty, and there shouldn't be any attempt to mislead the American public." Please. If politicians would only take their own advice!
Summary Judgments
I found this story to be a pretty well-researched, good analysis of the electoral college outlook. • • • Edible, chicken-flavored nail polish is apparently something a real company (KFC) decided should exist. • • • Beware unverified cute stories: This story about a 15-year-old Canadian boy who found a lost Mayan city sounds incredible. And it would be — if true. But so far, there's little to back it up, and people who know more about it — Mayan experts — doubt the discovery. • • • I'm fond of Drew Magary's yearly message to college graduates, because they're the sort of tough but honest talk you don't often hear. This year's is no exception. It's foul-mouthed, but has a great point about "safe spaces" and human decency. • • • I haven't been running this week. I've had bad allergies and a lingering cough. Last week I ran 2.5 miles three times, but the third time ended with a cough-induced "upheaval," so I've decided to take it easy until the cough is gone. I'll probably be OK next week. • • • We're kind of introducing the idea of the potty to Evie. She's been saying potty-related words lately, so one day after she said "Peepee" a couple of times and grabbed at her diaper, Alyson took her into the potty. After a minute or so, Alyson turned on the water for encouragement, and it worked! She peed in the potty! Of course, Curious Roland then stuck his hand in it, so it wasn't all roses. She hasn't done it since then, but it was a surprising start.
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Party Rules and the Electoral College
Although there are a few small states voting between now and June 5, there's really not a whole lot going on until California, New Jersey and some other states vote on that date. This is a good time to take a breather and re-assess the Presidential campaign. While it's easy to go on and on about why this or why that, one thing that many media sources have ignored is how party rules have affected the races.
GOP
The easiest race to discuss, largely because it's over. Everyone's dropped out except Donald Trump, and he'll probably clinch the nomination in the next month. So how did Donald Trump win? It's a combination of factors, including media coverage and "outsider" status, but let's look at GOP delegate rules.
Notably, the GOP doesn't have a national guideline. Instead, all 50 states (plus the territories and D.C.) get to choose their own rules on how the delegates are divvied up. What this means in practice is that many states give bonuses to whoever wins the primary or caucus, even if that person doesn't reach a majority. So in the early part of the race, when there were 17 candidates, the GOP vote was split dramatically. Trump, with his passionate supporters, remained steady at about 35 percent, give or take. However, the delegate rules of most states gave him a cushy bonus even though he had merely earned a plurality. So he got bonus points, even though (by sheer math alone), the majority of people had voted against him. It wasn't until his home state of New York, when his opponents were the increasingly desperate Ted Cruz and John Kasich, that he actually crossed the 50 percent mark.
If the GOP had picked its candidate with the same rules as Democrats (proportionality), we would practically be guaranteed of a contested convention. The race would still be on.
Democrats
The Democratic race is still ongoing, but that's a little misleading. While Bernie Sanders still has a chance, and he has vowed to fight until and through the convention, he's fighting a battle that's already over — he just hasn't realized it yet. Sanders would have to win every remaining state by a 2:1 advantage to catch up. And that includes winning a couple states with minorities, like California, that he simply hasn't won consistently. Yes, he won Indiana this week — but Hillary also didn't spend a dollar on the race because she's saving up for the general election.
The reason why he has to win every state by a 2:1 advantage is because the Democrat rules are set by a national standard — each state distributes their delegates by proportion. So take Wyoming, for instance. The state had 14 delegates. Bernie won the state 55-45 percent. However, his results weren't high enough for eight delegates — at the end of the day, he and Clinton both won seven delegates. Since Clinton racked up a big lead through the big states and the Deep South, she has been kind of coasting the last month or two. A big bone to pick with Sanders fans has been super delegates, but that's also a losing battle. Even if you give her the super delegates that correspond with the states she won, then she'll clinch the nomination after California/New Jersey on June 5. It's over, but Sanders insists on playing out the string.
If the Democrats had picked its candidate with the same rules as the GOP (bonuses for winning states), then Hillary's lead would be three times larger and a nomination nearly clinched without super delegates. The race would be over.
General Election and its effects
Provided she vanquishes Bernie Sanders and picks up a good share of his voters, Hillary Clinton is your next President. She's one of the most disliked candidates ever — but she's also going to be running against THE most disliked candidate ever. To many, she's the lesser of two evils. I've already taken a look at the electoral college in a past blog entry, but let me sum it up here: Not factoring in candidates, Democrats are in good position to win the White House. Donald Trump is not the strong national figure that can unite against the Democratic advantage. (There was one possible strategy I found convincing for Trump: Lose every state from Obama's tenure, except flip four Rust Belt states: Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. But PA and MI haven't been red since 1988 and Wisconsin hasn't been red since 1984, so it's an uphill climb.)
One thing to watch is how much Democrats can take advantage of the GOP-Trump ties. GOP senatorial candidates will now have to defend being "the party of Trump." The Democrats only need four Senate seats to flip (or five if they lose the Presidency) to win back the Senate. Of the 10 "toss-up" seats not considered safe, only one of those is currently a Democrat — and that's Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid's seat (he's retiring). On the other hand, the House is probably too much to flip — 34 of 36 "toss-ups" would have to switch parties for the Democrats to take it over.
Summary Judgments
Let's have a moment of silence for the shortest run for vice president in the history of our country: Carly Fiorina! She was a vice presidential candidate for less than a week. • • • You'd think Chris Matthews would know that he's around a hot microphone. But nope. He went and opened his big mouth about how attractive he thought Melania Trump is while he didn't think anyone could hear him. • • • Evie's been taking flash cards with letters on them to her day care teacher and saying what they are. I've been testing her to see which letters she knows, and she knows D, P, K, and A for sure. The others are either intermittent or she doesn't know them. • • • I'm still running as training for a 5K in June. This week, I've run 2.5 miles twice. The two mile mark was all mental. The 2.5 mile mark is more a physical issue. I've made it, but I've had to make stops each time for different reasons. Adding that final mile to 3/4 of a mile has been the most difficult part so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)