Polls

The fascination with poll results this election cycle is perplexing, since by any measure, polls are considerably less effective at predicting election results than they were ten years ago. There are many reasons for this, a significant one is the prevalence of cell phones, which make it easier for people to opt out of polling. Yet, we still look at polls as if they actually tell us something. Who was invited to the Republican "debates" was dependent on poll results. Donald Trump's main argument for voting for him in the early primaries was largely based on how well he was doing in the polls. Sanders supporters want Clinton to drop out because they say that polls indicate that Sanders could geat Trump while Clinton could not. Everybody ignores the fact that different polls say different things. In fact, with targeted wording, they can be made to say just what you want them to say.

I can understand the need for political campaigns to utilize polls in order to decide where to run certain ads, what areas might be "safe" and where to concentrate get-out-the-vote efforts. But to use a poll as any kind of reliable prediction of how people will vote is not very helpful.

Clinton

Why do people hate Hillary Clinton so much? Part of it is simply part and parcel of being a politician - whatever you do, whatever stance you take, whatever policies that you advocate, somebody is going to be against it. But it seems like she's getting hit from not only the right, but the left as well. She's too liberal, no she's not liberal enough; she lacks experience, no she's too much a tool of the establishment; holy crap, make up your damn minds. I can understand the hatred from the right - after all, despite not being a democratic socialist (or social democrat) like Senator Sanders, her nominees to the Supreme Court will presumably not being found in the strict constructionist, overturn Roe vs. Wade camp, and her overall policies can be expected to skew to the left, at least when it comes to social policies. A President Clinton will also not be trying to overturn "Obamacare". But the vitriol from the left is disappointing. I can understand the excitement that a self-proclaimed socialist brings to the candidate selection process, I understand how someone so seemingly outside the mainstream can energize younger, non-racist voters. I get it. But many voters who wouldn't have voted for a Republican in any circumstance are parroting the Republican talking points about Secretary Clinton. Every loss by Sanders is blamed on rigged elections, with Sanders supporters sounding like college football fans who blame the referees for every game that their team loses. Every statement by Clinton is twisted and interpreted in the worst possible light.

Two things inspired me to write this post: one was a quote from back in January that made the rounds last week, Clinton, who recently became a grandparent was talking about giving the children of our country the opportunity to succeed. She mentioned how many people talk about their extraordinary grandchildren, and that she actually has one. What I got out of it was that, as a new grandparent, she is more focused than ever on helping ensure a bright future for everybody's grandchildren. But the Sanders supporters took this as an attack against Sanders, who has many grandchildren, none of whom happen to be biologically related to him. She was even misquoted as stating that she had a "real" grandchild. The other thing was when Clinton talked about successful people, comparing them to "pretend successful" people, to me, an obvious swipe at Trump, but no, the Sanders crowd took it as a swipe against small business owners, who incidentally, Clinton has always spoken highly of. Sanders supporters advocate a third-party run if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, apparently unwilling to see how this would virtually guarantee a Trump presidency, putting the hypothetical future blame on Clinton supporters who in their opinion foolishly nominated the weaker candidate.

Some of the dislike for Clinton goes back to her days as First Lady. She definitely rubbed a lot of people the wrong way by refusing to conform to the popular expectation that women defer to men and eschew having opinions of their own. Most of it, in my view, is simply the need to demonize the other side in most political contests. When you can't realistically address your opponent's positions, mock their appearance, ascribe to them evil motives and exaggerate their mistakes. Or convene congressional investigations, the purpose of which, according to the committee chairman, is to target Clinton.

Let's not underestimate the irrational desire by many Americans to elect as President someone who knows nothing about the economy, libel laws, trade, the function of the military or international relations. The Republicans quickly showed the door to any candidate who had even a hint of governmental experience, and many Democrats mistakenly think that Bernie Sanders, who has been in Washington for 25 years and a Vermont politicians before that, is an outsider.

Hillary Clinton isn't perfect, but she has the experience and credentials to lead the country as President.

The Good Old Days

Donald Trump's ascendancy in the Republican primaries & caucuses is completely understandable. people are upset, people are frustrated and Trump took advantage of that anger and frustration by telling people what they wanted to hear. But is that anger and frusration legitimate? Or is it based on ignorance, bigotry and a lack of understanding about how things work?

A large segment of our population is convinced that the country has gone to the fictional hell in the proverbial handbasket and that if we'd only elect people who will go to Washington and shake things up, everything would be fine. We have had several waves of this conservative backlash over the last twenty years. Newt Gingrinch orchestrated a Republican takeover of Congress after forty years of Democratic ascendancy back in the nineties. In the past decade, the so-called Tea Party movement has pushed out many Republican lawmakers and moved the party farther to the political right. This demographic is not only frustrated with the Democrats, but also with the Republicans, even so-called Tea Party types, who they believe sold them out once they got into positions of power. Many of those, like Ted Cruz, elected on a Tea Party platform, quickly realized that you couldn't snap your fingers and make things happen instantaneously, but that effecting change is a long, slow process.

Many of these people hold the opinion that "the liberals", and in particular President Obama, are ruining, or even hate, our country and that they have to "take it back". They are sure that the homosexuals are out to destroy "traditional" marriage, that minorities have all the rights and advantages, and that Christianity is under assault. These folks often support bringing religion into the schools and government ( as long as it's their religion), are for the "right" of people to discriminate based on their religion and cutting all government programs that help the poor (except for those that benefit them). They look to a time when things were supposedly better and long to return to those times.

Some of what they recall about the good old days is true. There was a time when someone with just a high school education could get a good job that would enable them to live well, buy a home, send the kids to college and retire to Florida. Many of those jobs have moved overseas or have disappeared altogether. Not because of godless liberal policies, but because business owners are looking out for the bottom line (as they always have) and not the needs of their workers or the community. But even in the midst of the apparent prosperity of bygone times, there were shadows. Much of that prosperity was not available to African-Americans. Women did not have equal rights. Racism and sexism were "normal" and accepted. Gays were "in the closet" and discrimination against them was considered acceptable. And with this loss of prosperity, people look for someone to blame. Minorities are blamed, the poor, who are forced to accept government assistance to survive, are blamed. It's somebody's fault.

So people look to someone who promises to make it all better, to make America great again. It doesn't matter that there's no real plan, no real agenda, no real understanding of how things work. As long as we're hearing what we want to hear, as long as scapegoats are identified, we have our hero.

Free Stuff

One of the more common criticisms of Bernie Sanders is that he (if elected) is going to raise taxes in order to give lazy people "free stuff". Senator Sanders claims that he has a plan to offset the additional expenditures that his plans will require, I'm a little skeptical about his math and the underlying assumptions, but not about the basic rightness of what he wants to do.

Sanders describes himself as a Democratic Socialist (but could more accurately be described as a Social Democrat ) and his detractors latch on to the label "socialist" as if it were a synonym for "evil". Socialism has many forms, it is not a one-size-fits-all system or philosophy. On one end of the spectrum you have the communist dictatorships and on another point in the spectrum you have the Scandinavian nations. Comparing Sanders' brand of socialism to the communist regimes is a straw man: he is not advocating anything that extreme. He is not advocating abolishing capitalism for instance.

We all (in theory) pay taxes. Taxes (again, in theory) finance things that benefit the nation as a whole. Many of the programs that our taxes finance have obvious universal benefits. We surely need a military, even if we disagree about its mission at times; but beyond that, it could probably be argued that every other federal expenditure benefits some people and not others. I use the interstate highway system, but not national parks, for example. Some argue that most of Sanders' proposals are merely giveaways, "free stuff", akin to welfare. But it could be argued that we already have plenty of giveaways that benefit the wealthiest among us. How many cities build sports stadiums that are then operated for the profit of a private company? Many of the giveaways to the wealthy come in the form of tax breaks or tax refunds. Homeowners receive a tax deduction for the interest that they pay on their home loans. If you are a homeowner receiving this benefit, you undoubtedly think that it's a good thing, because it benefits you. There are numerous tax exemptions and incentive programs available, usually to those who already have quite a large bank account balance. You don't hear a lot of opposition to these "giveaways".

What is the best use of our tax dollars? It could be argued that making it easier for everyone to get a college education is beneficial to the nation as a whole, in addition to basic fairness to the individual. This ties into the idea of a higher minimum wage. An argument against a higher wage is that it is a disincentive for people to seek more education, "bettering" themselves in order to find better paying work. While there is some truth to this position, the availability of well-paying jobs and careers for those without a college education has diminished over the last decades. A generation ago there was an abundance of jobs in manufacturing, railroads, government, law enforcement, construction, and the building trades that paid well enough for someone to live fairly well, buy a home and perhaps even send the kids to college. Those jobs are disappearing. And even where they still exist, the pay rate is lower for the newer hires and there is often not the pension plan that the previous generation enjoyed. There often is no opportunity for people to better themselves, to move on from entry-level jobs and college is either priced beyond reach or a graduate is saddled with crippling debt. Couldn't it be argued that using our tax dollars for this purpose was just as legitimate as providing tax shelters for the wealthy?

Dark Brain

Dark thoughts lost in the rain

Controlled lightning strikes in a dark brain

Black mirror reflection cracks 'neath the strain

Obsidian streets cut off from the sane

Fog rolls in...