Category: Politics

Blame Libertarians for election confusion?

by philg

We’re celebrating here in Massachusetts because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib have been reelected by the wise American people (USA Today). Regarding the folks who were actually on my Massachusetts ballot, most candidates ran unopposed so it isn’t worth discussing the typical “race”. Question 1 passed (about 75/25), which means we can pay state workers to monitor what car manufacturers are doing with their telematics interfaces. Question 2, ranked choice voting, failed (55/45).

The issue of ranked choice and minor parties leads me to wonder whether Jo Jorgensen and the Libertarians are responsible for the fact that we can’t be sure right now how much ridicule should be heaped on me for my failed prediction that Biden-Harris would win. Let’s check out the NYT Results Map:

The NYT hates Libertarians so much that it takes at least three clicks to learn about any Libertarian votes. But if we click down into Wisconsin, which Biden-Harris leads by 1.1 percent, we learn that 1.2 percent of voters chose Ms. Jorgensen. Biden-Harris lead by 0.6 percent in Nevada, with 86 percent of the vote tallied. The Libertarian vote, 0.9 percent, is larger than the difference between mainstream candidates.

Biden-Harris has a 0.2 percent lead in Michigan and 1.1 percent of voters there chose Libertarian. Trump is leading by 1.8 percent in Georgia, but it would be 3 percent if all of the Libertarians had voted for Trump rather than for Shutdown Joe. It’s a similar story in North Carolina. He Who Must Not Be Named leads 1.4 percent with 95 percent of the vote tallied, which is apparently not sufficient to predict the outcome. In NC, 0.9 percent voted Libertarian. If they’d voted against the promised bigger government of President Harris, the spread would be 2.3 percent.

(I’m a small-L libertarian, but it is difficult for me to get behind Joe Jorgensen. She has come out in favor of legalized prostitution, for example. Sex work has traditionally been regulated by state governments, not the federal. So a Calvin Coolidge-style president wouldn’t express an opinion on the subject. It is also unclear how prostitution could ever work in the typical U.S. state, in which it is more profitable to have sex with a high-income customer and harvest the child support than to go to college (or even medical school) and work. See “Child Support Litigation without a Marriage” or just look at the entrepreneur who successfully mined out the Biden family via Hunter Biden. An exception to this rule is Nevada, in which child support profits are capped at about $13,000 per year per child and, as it happens, prostitution is legal in some counties.)

Readers: What do we think? Fair to call the Libertarians the spoilers of 2020? In a country where most voters want a bigger government, higher taxes, and more regulation, should the Libertarians recognize that by running their own candidates they are simply helping Democrats?

Alternatively, if the Republicans were smart, would they try to appease the Libertarians into not running in swing states? Maybe agree to add a Libertarian-themed goal or two into the Republican platform (Rand Paul can draft! (note that “Rand” is short for “Randy”, not a reference to Ayn Rand)). Share some funding with Libertarians in the non-swing states to get the message out. Basically do whatever it takes to stop Libertarians from running in Nevada and the rest of the states described above.

Full post, including comments

Biden wins Massachusetts with 2 percent of the vote

by philg

The New York times reports: “Joseph R. Biden Jr. won Massachusetts’ 11 electoral votes”. I read a little more of the page and learned that this fact was reported with 3 percent of the vote counted. In other words, Biden won 2 percent of the votes and that was enough for the NYT to say that he won the state election. Why not report “Biden won” at 7:01 am, then?

Full post, including comments

Election outcome prediction?

by philg

A Dutch friend asked me, during a weekend WhatsApp, to predict the election outcome. (He also asked “Why couldn’t the Democrats have run Tutankhamun or Elvis? They’re at least as alive as Joe Biden.”) I responded that it was impossible for anyone to predict anything because (1) people who support Trump would be afraid to give an honest answer to a poll-taker, (2) the U.S. “news” is now mostly propaganda designed by the editors to achieve their desired electoral results. “It’s impossible to get unbiased information about what people outside of one’s immediate neighborhood actually think.”

But maybe for fun we can have a bragging rights pool on this blog!

I will go first. I’m a big fan of the “tomorrow will be the same as today” method of weather forecasting and also that people vote their personal interest. So a Ph.D. who works in a government-funded university, a physician who benefits when the government directs more money to health care, and a lawyer who gets paid to help companies navigate the regulatory landscape will all vote for the Democrats and the promised bigger government. A working-class native-born American who is being financially injured by low-skill immigration (Harvard study) will vote for the Republicans. A small business owner who can’t afford the lawyers necessary to thrive in a heavily regulated high-tax environment will similarly vote Republican.

The one factor that I think could drive change is that Americans have been convinced that the federal government can control whether or not people become infected with COVID-19. The raging plagues all over Europe, in countries with governments previously considered excellent (if costly), can’t compete against American media constantly reminding us that Trump is personally responsible for every COVID-19 death on U.S. soil. Also, a lot of Americans are depressed after being locked down for nearly 8 months. Depressed people are willing to try almost anything to escape depression (even the antidepressant drugs that don’t work). Finally, the coronapanic and associated governor-ordered shutdowns have left more Americans than ever dependent on the government. People on welfare tend to vote for Democrats. The “Trump has no empathy” attack has been common in 2020 and it makes sense only if voters expect that the government will be their primary source of housing, health care, food, etc.

I’m going to consider WalletHub’s ranking of states by coronavirus restrictions as a guide to where Americans are eager to surrender what had been considered their freedoms and have the government take care of them. Two Trump states from 2016 that have meekly submitted to lockdowns and school closures are Texas and Pennsylvania. Florida, on the other hand, ranks high in freedom and the governor ordered teachers to teach. So I am going to predict a Trump victory in Florida and a loss in Texas. (Maybe this will be wrong because Bloomberg’s $millions for felons changed the electorate in Florida so much?) The locked-down-and-rioting population in Pennsylvania accepted Rachel Levine (“an American pediatrician currently serving as the Pennsylvania Secretary of Health. … She is one of only a handful of openly transgender government officials in the United States”) as their guide so they’ll accept Joe Biden.

Let’s look at the results from 2016: 304/227 in electoral votes. We subtract 58 for the cower-in-place folks in Texas and Pennsylvania and now Donald Trump goes home to tax-free Florida at 246 while President Harris comes in with 285.

Summarized by our unkind friends in lockdown across the pond:

Backup prediction in case the above is spectacularly wrong: Trump won’t win any state that he didn’t win in 2016. Joe Biden’s promise to lock everyone down will be too compelling for a nation that was risk-averse and is now fleeing to what it perceives as security.

Potential second theory: social media companies will deliver this election to the Democrats by driving high turnout (thought to help Democrats and hurt incumbents). I opened Facebook yesterday and almost the entire page was obscured by the company’s in-house ad urging me to vote:

Related:

Full post, including comments

My election prediction: Democrats will be flummoxed

by philg

An April Facebook post from a friend with a Ph.D. in engineering:

Folks, regardless of your specific political orientation the choice in this year’s presidential election could not be more clear.

Biden is way behind on campaign funds. Way behind.

I just donated.

A September 1 post:

If you’re going to vote for Trump this election, unfriend me now. Sorry extended family. I don’t care who you do vote for, but if you vote for Trump you’ve lost my respect as a human being. I can’t imagine thinking that this is OK. We are in the time we have always thought “what would I do if I was alive then?” Act like it. I sure hope your tax breaks are worth it.

And, of course, it is always popular to share this meme:

“Agree to disagree” is reserved for things like “I don’t like coffee.” Not racism, homophobia, and sexism. Not human rights. Not basic common decency. If I unfriend you during this, it IS personal. We do not have a difference of opinion. We have a difference in morality.

For me, these encapsulate of the American political situation. Democrats, though they officially celebrate “diversity”, cannot imagine that anyone would have a substantially different opinion than they do regarding public policy, the appropriate role for government, etc.

There is a clear choice in this election. Moral intelligent people will vote for Biden-Harris. Only immoral stupid racist people who ignore the advice of their betters (e.g., in the media) will vote for Trump. Thus, I feel confident in predicting that if even a single person today votes for a Republican candidate, tens of millions of Democrats will be perplexed! How is it possible that the U.S. contains a substantial number of people who are simultaneously completely lacking in moral compass, cognitive ability, and racial tolerance?

What says the most-cited professor at M.I.T., whose research into Trump’s deficiencies has apparently continued despite the general shutdown? From New Yorker:

Professor Chomsky agrees with Joe Biden (see the debate transcript) that the Earth is almost destroyed and humanity is nearly finished and that this is primarily Donald Trump’s fault:

Q: The worst criminal in human history? That does say something.

It does. Is it true?

Q: Well, you have Hitler; you have Stalin; you have Mao.

Stalin was a monster. Was he trying to destroy organized human life on earth?

Q: Well, he was trying to destroy a lot of human lives.

Yes, he was trying to destroy lots of lives but not organized human life on earth, nor was Adolf Hitler. He was an utter monster but not dedicating his efforts perfectly consciously to destroying the prospect for human life on earth.

This does lead to two perplexing questions: (1) if human life is nearly extinct, why do anything at all about coronavirus, which kills only a small percentage of people when allowed to rage, and (2) how can we have fellow citizens who will voluntarily vote for the worst criminal in human history?

Update, November 4, from a Facebook friend:

I don’t care who wins. the country has already said it’s totally acceptable to be a bigoted, proven pathological liar and that is really disappointing. Those who teach our kids trump is the very example of what not to do in life are now learning america likes it and want more of it. Very sad morning irrespective of the outcome.

From a Berkeley, California resident who works in a government-funded academic environment:

How could so many Americans have looked at what’s happened over the last four years and thought, “Yeah, that’s good, let’s have more of that!”?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Safe to predict a defeat for Senator Susan Collins of Maine?

by philg

Susan Collins was the only Republican who voted against the beloved-by-Honda-minivan-drivers Amy Coney Barrett. Collins was already hated by everyone in the greater Portland, Maine region (nearly half the state’s population). At age 67, she is also subject to prejudice against the elderly (though Biden doesn’t seem to be hurting!). Presumably her vote against Barrett was calculated to enhance her chances for reelection, but I wonder if it is safe to say that this choice doomed her. To win, she needs nearly everyone in small town and rural Maine to turn out and vote against their oppression by the sophisticated credentialed enriched-by-bigger-government folks in Portland. But now that this ancient sack of muddled middle-of-the-road positions has voted against America’s SuperMom, how are the rural Mainers supposed to muster enough enthusiasm to vote?

I’m usually wrong about everything, but I am going to predict here that the 48-year-old Sara Gideon prevails. Maine will finally be represented by a politician that all of Portland supports!

(helicopter flying by me; photo by Tony)

Related:

  • “Gideon raked in $39 million for Senate race in last 3 months” (Portland Press Herald, October 15): Democrat Sara Gideon raised more than $39 million for her U.S. Senate campaign in the third quarter of this year, nearly five times the $8 million contributed to the campaign of Republican Sen. Susan Collins. [We haven’t seen too many complaints in U.S. media lately about money corrupting politics; is that because Democrats are raising far more money than Republicans?]
Full post, including comments

COVID-19 survivors speak

by philg

Kellyanne Conway and Melania Trump, both recent victims of COVID-19, managed to recover sufficient lung capacity to speak in Pennsylvania recently. The video is on PBS and a transcript on Rev.

I had never seen a video of Melania Trump before and it was interesting to hear her perspective. Some excerpts:

For the first time in history, the citizens of this country get to hear directly and instantly from their president every single day through social media. I do not always agree with the way he says things but it is important to him that he speaks directly to the people he serves.

The Democrats have chosen to put their own agendas ahead of the American people’s wellbeing. Instead, they attempt to create a divide, a divide on something that should be nonpartisan and non-controversial.

While the President was taking decisive action to keep the American people safe, the Democrats were wasting American taxpayer dollars in a sham impeachment. They cared more about removing our elected president.

Joe Biden attacked President Trump’s decision to put the American people first and closing travel from China. He called it xenophobic hysteria. Now he suggest that he could have done a better job. The American people can look at Joe Biden’s 36 years in Congress and eight years in the Vice Presidency and determine whether they think he will finally be able to get something done for the American people.

Before my husband decided to run for President, the media loved him because they saw the man that I see every day. Someone tough, successful, and fair. … A man who sees potential in everyone he meets, no matter their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. … But when he decided to run for the President as a Republican, the media created a different picture of my husband, one I don’t recognize, and treated all his supporters with equal disdain. The media has chosen to focus on stories of idle gossip and palace intrigue by editorializing real events and policies with their own bias and agendas.

Apparently Melania has been paying close attention to events in Washington and beyond. She espouses a traditional (for American politicians) message of prosperity and security:

This election isn’t just about the next year. It’s about the next four years and beyond. It’s about continuing to set this country on a course of real prosperity and success. We can’t and we shouldn’t go backwards. Donald Trump is the man who will lead us and empower us to make that greater future together. Donald Trump will expand and grow the economy and keep us safe.

Joe Biden’s policy and socialist agenda will only serve to destroy America and all that has been built in the past four years. We must keep Donald in the White House so he can finish what he started and our country can continue to flourish.

And she’s kind of humble:

Thank you for taking time out of your day to be here with me.

Readers: Could Melania win a Senate race in her new home of Florida, for example? Rick Scott is 67, which is 20 years younger than Dianne Feinstein. On the other hand, maybe Scott would rather do something else in what would traditionally be considered his Golden Years.

Full post, including comments

What jobs could Biden and Trump do if they fail to win?

by philg

Within a few days we will know whether Biden (78 later this month) or Trump (74) will be available to work in the private sector starting in January.

According to the American voters, whose wisdom can never be doubted(!), these two are the most able administrators in our land. So… what would Trump do if he lost? Go back to chairmanship of his real estate empire? Phil Ruffin is still actively managing his real estate empire at age 85 (and was vigorous enough at 72 to marry Oleksandra Nikolayenko, Miss Ukraine 2004).

How about Biden? Leaving aside lobbying and other jobs that are dependent on connections (not to say “corruption”!), who would want him to start work at their enterprise at age 78? What would Biden be able to do?

How about Hillary Clinton? In November 2016, more than 65 million Americans believed her to be the most able administrator in the land. What has Hillary done since then?

Full post, including comments

Bloomberg tries to buy the elections in Ohio and Florida

by philg

From last month, The absurd conspiracy that Wall Street elites are manipulating American politics:

My Facebook friends like to conjure a bogeyman somewhere in the South or Midwest. He is wearing camo, carrying an AR-15, driving a car with a Trump/Pence bumper sticker, and spouting an absurd conspiracy theory about Wall Streeters manipulating American politics far beyond their coastal elite districts.

Showing just how wrong this conspiracy theory is: “Bloomberg pledges $60M to boost House Democrats” (The Hill). (This will also be great for allaying the concerns of those who believe that rich Jews have too much influence in the U.S.!)

From my inbox today, from MikeBloomberg.com:

Let’s turn Texas and Ohio blue

With four days until Election Day, we’re taking the fight to Donald Trump in two new battleground states.

Earlier this week, Mike announced plans to fund an ad blitz in Ohio and Texas in the closing days of the election. Now, new messages — about the worsening COVID-19 pandemic and Joe Biden’s plans to restore the economy — are hitting the airwaves.

You can help us get the word out. Watch and share the ads we’re running in Texas and Ohio: [links to ads such as this one]

The ads focus on Joe’s plans to “build back better” and Donald Trump’s mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis. In the last two weeks, COVID-19 cases are up 60% in Ohio, 48% in Texas, and 42% nationwide.

These investments follow Mike’s commitment to spending $100 million in another key battleground state: Florida. That investment has helped mobilize voters and strengthened a COVID-19-responsible ground game to increase turnout for Joe Biden.

What if American voters do decide that an innumerate 78-year-old will, starting in January 2021, crack a medical/scientific/technical problem that has eluded all of the science-following European countries (exponential plague in the fully masked Old World right now)? How enraged are the working class folks who supported Trump going to be regarding the political influence of wealthy American Jews?

A 2015 photo of Chabad in Dallas. They might need to make a huge sign reading “We’re not Bloomberg-style Jews”…

The Fort Worth Japanese Garden (masks optional):

Just imagine how many awesome gardens Americans could have enjoyed if Bloomberg had decided to spend his $billions on gardens rather than on Trump hatred.

Full post, including comments

Mark Zuckerberg uses his $110+ billion wealth to lobby for a tax increase on people other than Mark Zuckerberg

by philg

“California Tax Revolt Faces a Retreat, 40 Years Later” (NYT):

The new initiative, Proposition 15, would amend the state’s Constitution so that properties like offices and industrial parks would no longer be protected by Proposition 13. By creating a “split roll” system, in which residential property would continue to be shielded from tax increases but commercial property would not, backers hope to capitalize on Democratic energy to raise taxes on large corporations without alarming homeowners.

Proposition 15 would raise $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion a year for public schools, community colleges and city and county governments, according to a nonpartisan state agency. The Yes campaign, called Schools and Communities First, is backed by a number of public employees unions and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the philanthropic organization founded by Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook chief executive, and his wife, Priscilla Chan.

So… Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t want to see higher taxes on all forms of wealth, but only on wealth held in the form of real estate (0.01% of his personal wealth of at least $100 billion?)!

Separately, it turns out that commercial property owners actually don’t pay that much in tax in California:

It is not uncommon for neighbors to pay double or triple the taxes of a similar home on the same block. A recent analysis of property taxes across the Bay Area is rife with eye-popping comparisons, like a $9 million home in an exclusive neighborhood of San Francisco that has lower property taxes than a $331,000 home near an oil refinery across the bay in Richmond.

When Proposition 13 passed, commercial property taxes were almost an afterthought. But since skyscrapers and shopping malls do not change hands as often as homes do, the law has shifted the property tax burden from corporations to homeowners. In 1975, a little under half the property taxes in Los Angeles County were paid by commercial properties. By 2017, commercial properties accounted for just over one-quarter of the property tax roll.

One part of this may be that each commercial property tends to live in its own LLC (oftentimes this is a condition of getting bank/mortgage financing). (So a guy like Donald Trump with multiple properties will inevitably have a complex tax return.) When investors come in and get bought out, the official ownership of the building hasn’t changed (still the LLC). California seems to have a mechanism for updating tax liability if most of the membership interest is swapped out, but I wonder how they enforce this in practice (since membership interest might not be accessible to the California government).

A friend who is a lawyer in Long Beach told me of doing some work for an apartment building owner. While doing this work he discovered that the massive apartment building paid less in property tax than he owed for his modest 2BR house.

As a percentage of residents’ income, California collects the 6th highest percentage of any state (Tax Foundation). On the other hand, the government is not nearly big/rich enough to give voters everything that they want and certainly not to give retired public employees everything that has been promised to them in terms of pensions and health insurance. So the state government will need massive additional revenue. But why not a straight wealth tax on Silicon Valley billionaires?

Full post, including comments