CNN is reporting two insider sources who state that Ohio Governor John Kaisch, Donald Trump's last opponent in the race for the GOP Presidential nomination, is dropping out.
This was a rational choice.
It has been mathematically impossible for Kaisch to win a majority of the GOP delegates in the first round for weeks. Kaisch would have had to win roughly 60% of the remaining GOP delegates to deny Trump a first round majority, and would have to win seven more states (all but a couple of those remaining) to overcome the Republican National Convention's Rule 40(b) that requires a nominee candidate to win eight states unless no one wins eight states (as Trump and Cruz did this year). Even then, Kaisch would be the underdog in a second round vote with fewer delegates going into the convention than Trump.
Yet, Kaisch has only finished first once, in his home state, and then only with his leading opponent (Rubio) not contesting the race. He's come in third place more often than he's come in second place. And, Cruz voters at the most conservative win of the Republican party would not naturally have all shifted to back Kaisch, one of the most moderate candidate's running for President this year by comparison. So, Kaisch in races post-Cruz could have been expected to perform less well than Kaisch + Cruz in earlier polls. Those poll numbers couldn't secured the delegates and states that Kaisch needed to win under any possible scenario.
The Kaisch bid has been truly a Hail Mary pass for a long time and Cruz's departure, by making it harder to deny Trump a first round majority, had left Kaisch needing nothing short of a miracle to win. Facing certain failure, and with no big agenda to push, he is dropping out and Trump really is the presumptive GOP nominee having convinced all of his opponents to drop out of the race before he even secured a majority of the delegates.
On to the Clinton-Trump general election. Clinton may be favored there, but pundits are, I think, overestimating her prospects. It is more likely to be a close election than a landslide even though conventional wisdom thinks that Trump is doomed in the general election.
04 May 2016
03 May 2016
Ted Cruz Drops Out!
CNN reports that Ted Cruz has dropped out of the Presidential race, leaving only Trump and Kaisch left in the race that it is mathematically impossible for Kaisch to win in the first round.
Effectively Trump has become the Republican nominee tonight.
And, as previously noted, Clinton is the presumptive nominee in the Democratic race at this point with Sanders having already laid off staff and acknowledged that the Democratic primary is now more about the party platform than the nomination.
Effectively Trump has become the Republican nominee tonight.
And, as previously noted, Clinton is the presumptive nominee in the Democratic race at this point with Sanders having already laid off staff and acknowledged that the Democratic primary is now more about the party platform than the nomination.
Cruz and Trump Go Wild In Indiana
UPDATE TWO: Trump looks like he will win all 57 delegates from Indiana. If he matches expert expectations everywhere but California, he needs only 99 out of 172 delegates in California (which is mixed winner take all at the state and congressional district level, where he has a commanding lead in the polls over Cruz and Kaisch). This race is Trump's to lose and again, if he is just a handful of delegates short, a few of the small number of the 146 uncommitted delegates will probably make up the difference in the first round vote. (The Indiana vote will be 50-50 Clinton-Sanders but the winner doesn't matter, Sanders needed 60% or so to even stay on track.)
We will almost surely be seeing a Clinton-Trump general election, in which Clinton is currently strongly favored to win (by about four standard deviations in the current general election polls; 6.2 percentage points with the total 5,825 person sample of the polls contributing to that result providing a 1.28 point margin of error).
UPDATE: Trump wins big in Indiana. CNN has called Indiana for Trump with a lead of 20 percentage points over Cruz in early returns. The Congressional District results that determine a fair share of the 57 delegates from Indiana aren't available yet, but Trump will get at least 33 delegates from Indiana and realistically, will get almost all of the delegates because one part of Indiana isn't that different from another and Trump's margin over Cruz is just that big. Exit polls show Trump leading in every region of the state. It is increasingly difficult for Cruz to deny Trump a first round win at the Republican convention in Cleveland. Trump has has commanding leads in polls in West Virginia, New Jersey, Oregon and California that a win in Indiana will do nothing to blunt. END UPDATE
The grown ups are not in charge in the Republican party this year.
As Ted Cruz and Donald Trump fight a pitched battle for Republican votes in today's Indiana primary election all standards of civility, decency, and any attempt to be reality based have gone out the window in what has become a surreal event.
We will almost surely be seeing a Clinton-Trump general election, in which Clinton is currently strongly favored to win (by about four standard deviations in the current general election polls; 6.2 percentage points with the total 5,825 person sample of the polls contributing to that result providing a 1.28 point margin of error).
UPDATE: Trump wins big in Indiana. CNN has called Indiana for Trump with a lead of 20 percentage points over Cruz in early returns. The Congressional District results that determine a fair share of the 57 delegates from Indiana aren't available yet, but Trump will get at least 33 delegates from Indiana and realistically, will get almost all of the delegates because one part of Indiana isn't that different from another and Trump's margin over Cruz is just that big. Exit polls show Trump leading in every region of the state. It is increasingly difficult for Cruz to deny Trump a first round win at the Republican convention in Cleveland. Trump has has commanding leads in polls in West Virginia, New Jersey, Oregon and California that a win in Indiana will do nothing to blunt. END UPDATE
The grown ups are not in charge in the Republican party this year.
As Ted Cruz and Donald Trump fight a pitched battle for Republican votes in today's Indiana primary election all standards of civility, decency, and any attempt to be reality based have gone out the window in what has become a surreal event.
Cruz is throwing ever insult under the sun at Trump in a barrage of personal attacks, while Trump is trying to link Cruz to the assassination of JFK.
Ted Cruz on Tuesday unloaded on Donald Trump, accusing him during a news conference of being a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen" and "a serial philanderer." . . .Earlier Tuesday, Trump had criticized Rafael Cruz, calling him "disgraceful" after he urged evangelical voters in Indiana to reject his son's rival. Trump also referenced a report from the tabloid National Enquirer -- without naming the publication -- which alleged that it had identified Rafael Cruz in a photo with Lee Harvey Oswald months prior to the JFK assassination. CNN has not independently confirmed that report -- and there is no evidence that it is true.
In fairness, pretty much all of Ted Cruz's attacks have at least some foundation in reality, while Trump's accusation is delusional and could hurt him in the general election:
Mark Salter, a top aide to 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, tweeted that he'd back Hillary Clinton over Trump. "The GOP is going to nominate for President a guy who reads the National Enquirer and thinks it's on the level. I'm with her," Salter said.
But, from 50,000 feet, it just looks like an out of control food fight and none of this seems likely to make much of a difference in today's contest.
Early indications are that the Cruz campaign is crumbling because he is turning off too many fiscally conservative, socially moderate Hoosier Republicans. When Cruz thinks that America needs to criminalize masturbation, it is hard to take him seriously.
We'll see how it comes out this evening. If Cruz has choked now, Trump becomes the presumptive nominee for all intents and purposes.
What Motivated The Bagel Terrorist?
A popular Five Points bagel shop that opened in 2014 was destroyed in a fire that started in a second floor apartment where a body was found in a closet.
What exactly happened and why remains unclear. Was the person killed first and then put in a closet? Cowering from invaders who set the place on fire while the person succumbed before he or she could escape? Was the person on drugs or lost in the confusion trying to get out an failing? Did the bagel shop have anything to do with it, or it was it aimed at the upstairs tenant?
What exactly happened and why remains unclear. Was the person killed first and then put in a closet? Cowering from invaders who set the place on fire while the person succumbed before he or she could escape? Was the person on drugs or lost in the confusion trying to get out an failing? Did the bagel shop have anything to do with it, or it was it aimed at the upstairs tenant?
30 April 2016
Ted Cruz Too Evil To Be A Satanist
[John] Boehner’s comment is illustrative of how well past time it is to adjust our mythologies to reflect our realities. [Ted] Cruz’s failures of reason, compassion, decency, and humanity are products of his Christian pandering, if not an actual Christian faith. It grows tedious when pedophile priests and loathsome politicians are conveniently dismissed as Satanic, even as they spew biblical verse and prostrate themselves before the cross, recruiting the Christian faithful. Satanists will have nothing to do with any of them.
— Satanic Temple spokesperson Lucien Greaves, when asked to comment on John Boehner’s recent statement that Ted Cruz is “Lucifer in the flesh. I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.” (Via Above The Law).
UPDATE: An interesting coincidence. April 30, 2016 was the 50th anniversary of LeVey's Church of Satan (not to be confused with the Satanic Temple). April 30 is also the day of burning witches in the Czech Republic (a.k.a. Walpurgis night a.k.a. Beltaine).
UPDATE: An interesting coincidence. April 30, 2016 was the 50th anniversary of LeVey's Church of Satan (not to be confused with the Satanic Temple). April 30 is also the day of burning witches in the Czech Republic (a.k.a. Walpurgis night a.k.a. Beltaine).
Soylent Green Is Inefficient
Contrary to popular perception, cannibalism is not an efficient use of scarce resources. If we want to maximize planetary carrying capacity, vegetables are the way to go.
BYU Loves Rapists, Hates Rape Victims
Brigham Young University is a Mormon educational institution. This means that it applies religious values rathe than secular morality.
So, it isn't at all surprising that it routinely persecutes students who report being raped while taking no action to punish the rapists. According to Sarah Westerberg, BYU's Title IX coordinator, "almost all of the reported rapes and assaults at BYU are false reports made by women that feel . . . morally bad after they're having consensual activities."
What a remarkable official policy. But, why would anyone expect anything else from a religious institution?
In the eyes of Mormons, like most Christians, this is what Jesus would do. And, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are full of instances of women being treated like shit with God's blessing and endorsement. So, maybe they're right.
29 April 2016
Republican Presidential Race Nomination Recap
Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kaisch are all continuing to seek the Republican party nomination for President to face presumptive Democratic party nominee Hillary Clinton this year.
Bottom line: I give Trump an 88% chance of winning the nomination (and a 13.2% chance of being elected President), and an 82% chance of a Clinton victory in the general election, mostly because Trump is weak vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton, but also because I think that Cruz is weaker vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton than polling so far would suggest because Cruz's flaws aren't as well known as they might be.
CNN's prediction market affiliate has a 78% chance of a Clinton Presidency and a 19% of a Trump Presidency, which is within reasonable margins of error of my own predictions, which suggests that my views are well within the mainstream of informed opinion on these issues. And, it isn't impossible that my liberal bias is pulling me to overstate Clinton's chances somewhat.
The Results So Far
There are 2,472 delegates to the National Republican Convention in Cleveland this July.
Trump has 1,002 pledged delegates and he needs 42% of the remaining delegates (271 of 564 including remaining super delegates) to win the Republican Presidential nomination on a first vote at the convention. After that first vote, the analysis becomes much more complex because pledged delegates cease to be pledged to their candidate at that point. The magic number at the Republican convention in Cleveland is 1,273 delegates.
It is mathematically impossible for anyone else to win on the first round, even if they are supported by all uncommitted delegates who can vote their preference in the first round. Ted Cruz has 571 pledged delegates and one super delegate who has endorsed him. John Kaisch has 157 pledged delegates. Marco Rubio has 167 pledged delegates. Ben Carson has 9 pledged delegates. Jeb Bush has 1 pledged delegate.
Rubio and Bush have given Cruz a lukewarm endorsement, and Kaisch has implied that he will join them in that lukewarm endorsement. Carson has given a lukewarm endorsement to Trump. But, none of those endorsements releases the delegates for those candidates in the first round or binds those delegates in later rounds.
Key Facts
Unlike the Democratic primary and caucus process, almost all of the remaining GOP races are winner take all, or winner take all partially at the state level and partially at the Congressional district level.
Republican party rule 40(b), which would have to be amended by a supermajority at the convention to change, limits the convention to considering only candidates who have won eight or more states, i.e. to either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Rule 40(b) excludes John Kaisch, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, or some "white knight" candidate who didn't run, from receiving the nomination unless both Trump and Cruz drop out of the race. (In theory, Kaisch could still win enough of the remaining states to qualify in addition to the one state, Ohio, that he has already won, but in reality this is simply impossible given his past performance and current polling among like Republican voters in the remaining primary states.)
Remaining Races With Predictions
The remaining Republican Presidential nomination races are as follows (with polling aggregated per Real Clear Politics when available):
May 3
Indiana - 57 delegates - Trump 37.5, Cruz 35.2, Kaisch 18.0 - No clear prediction
May 10
Nebraska - 36 delegates - Conventional wisdom favors Cruz (clean sweep) (Trump zero)
West Virginia - 34 delegates - Conventional wisdom favors Trump (almost clean sweep) (Trump 33)
May 17
Oregon - 28 delegates - No clear prediction
May 24
Washington - 44 delegates (proportional) - No clear prediction (At least 15 for Trump)
June 7
California - 172 delegates - Trump 45.7, Cruz 28.2, Kaisch 18.0 - No clear prediction
Montana - 27 delegates - Conventional wisdom favors Cruz (clean sweep) (Trump zero)
New Jersey - 51 delegates - Trump 52.0, Cruz 18.0, Kaisch 24.0 (Trump 51)
New Mexico - 24 delegates (proportional) - No clear prediction (At least 8 for Trump).
South Dakota - 29 delegates - Conventional wisdom favors Cruz (clean sweep) (Trump zero)
Analysis of The Rest Of Primary Season
It is much harder to robustly predict the outcome of the GOP race, because the winner take all nature of the contests (with incomplete Congressional district level data) creates a large swing in close races such as the Indiana race. The three way races also leave open the possibility of tactical moves in which Cruz or Kaisch drops out of contention in a state to give the other non-Trump candidate a shot at depriving Trump of those delegates.
And, the significant share of the remaining delegates that Trump needs leaves much less margin for error.
Analysis of the races give us 5 races to consider further and 84 Trump delegates from easier to predict races, so he would need 187 additional delegates from those 5 races and uncommitted delegates to win in the first round. If we make a conservative assumption that he will win at least a third of the delegates in the two states with a proportional allocation, his Trump's quota for Indiana, California and Oregon is 164 delegates out of the 257 delegates at stake in those states.
Trump leads in polling in both Indiana and California, which certainly gives him a viable shot at a first round win of the nomination and makes him even more of a front runner than he would have been otherwise. He not only leads in delegates, but has a path to victory paved with states where he leads in the polls.
But, it is close in Indiana where the close race could make for a wide swing of possibilities. Certainly, Trump gets some Congressional district delegates and Cruz gets other Congressional district delegates in a close race, but a switch of Kaisch voters to Cruz, as the those two candidates suggested briefly, could shift the balance decisively to Cruz in Indiana and deny Trump any delegates from Indiana.
Oregon sits between Trump territory and Cruz territory and I have seen no polling from this mixed winner take all state, so it is hard to predict.
Most California delegates are awarded at the Congressional district level, rather than at the state level where Trump should win if current polling holds up, so neither Trump nor Cruz will get all of California's delegates in all probability, but the polling seems to favor Trump decisively in California overall.
If Trump wins decisively in Indiana, he will probably win the GOP nomination on the first round, as there is little else to dent his momentum before the race goes to California. But, if Trump loses decisively in Indiana, he has even odds at best of winning a first round vote in the Convention.
At this point, I give Trump a 60% chance of winning on the first round.
Analysis of a Possible Contested Convention
If Trump secures 1,237 pledged delegates backing him in the first round of the convention, or falls a few delegates short but manages to win the backing of the handful of GOP super delegates in the first round, it is all over and Trump is the GOP nominee.
But, if Trump fails, the question is whether the Convention would suspend Rule 40(b) to allow someone other than Trump or Cruz to be considered, and if not, whether Trump or Cruz would win in a second round vote at the Convention.
Trump will undisputedly have secured more delegates by far, more of the popular vote by far, and more states in the Republican primary than Cruz or anyone else. A Convention vote for Cruz will look like a coup and weaken him, perhaps irremediably with Trump supporters. In contrast, supporters of other candidates may be disillusioned by a Trump win, but aren't nearly as likely to bolt the party in the end and won't be in a position to claim that Trump's win was illegitimate.
Trump isn't loved by the GOP establishment, but most of the candidates who were eliminated from the race after winning delegates (except Carson) have reluctantly endorsed Cruz, but almost nobody in the GOP establishment likes Cruz. For example, former Speaker of the House Hastert denounced Cruz as Lucifer incarnate yesterday. And, Trump has a much greater position to wheel and deal with personal or political favors for delegates than Cruz who has fewer resources and more unbreakable political commitments (and is simply less of a negotiator).
Cruz has tried hard to plant disloyal individuals as Trump delegates, and maybe he's succeeded. It is hard to know as an outsider to the process.
I give Trump at least a 55% chance of winning in a second round vote against Cruz. Combined with my prediction that he has a 60% chance of winning on the first round, this gives Trump an 88% chance of winning the GOP nomination in my estimation, with Cruz having perhaps a 10% chance of winning the nomination, and some other white knight having perhaps a 2% chance.
The crystal ball will be much less cloudy on Tuesday night when we have the results from Indiana.
Onto the General Election
In a Trump v. Clinton race, I would give Clinton an 80%-90% chance of winning, call it 85% to split the difference. Her current margin in national polls over Trump is almost thee standard deviations, but I expect that to fall to quite a bit more than one standard deviation, but less than two standard deviations (95% chance) by the time the general election rolls along as Trump positions himself closer to the center and moderates his publicly expressed views and maybe even apologizes for some of his previous incendiary statement.
In a Cruz v. Clinton race, I would give Clinton a 75% chance of winning which is probably an underestimate given the legitimacy issues that Cruz will face and the fact that lots of Americans haven't yet had time to get to know him and that doing so will reduce his esteem in the eyes of the average voter. Clinton leads Cruz in national polls by about one standard deviation, but I expect that the gap will grow over time.
In a White Knight v. Clinton race, I would give Clinton a 50% chance of winning (given Kaisch's strong polling against Clinton, but the true legitimacy problem that any such candidate would face).
This gives us a 16.7% chance of a Republican President in the 2016 general election and a 82% chance of a President Clinton and a 1.3% or so chance of a President Sanders (considering less than 2% but more than 1% chance of him being the nominee and the strong likelihood that he would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election under those circumstances).
So the odds regarding the likelihood of various persons being our next President in my estimation are:
* President Hillary Clinton 82%
* President Donald Trump 13.2%
* President Cruz 2.5%
* President Sanders 1.3%
* President Kaisch 1.0%
* Democratic President 5/6th
* Republican President 1/6th
Bottom line: I give Trump an 88% chance of winning the nomination (and a 13.2% chance of being elected President), and an 82% chance of a Clinton victory in the general election, mostly because Trump is weak vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton, but also because I think that Cruz is weaker vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton than polling so far would suggest because Cruz's flaws aren't as well known as they might be.
CNN's prediction market affiliate has a 78% chance of a Clinton Presidency and a 19% of a Trump Presidency, which is within reasonable margins of error of my own predictions, which suggests that my views are well within the mainstream of informed opinion on these issues. And, it isn't impossible that my liberal bias is pulling me to overstate Clinton's chances somewhat.
The Results So Far
There are 2,472 delegates to the National Republican Convention in Cleveland this July.
Trump has 1,002 pledged delegates and he needs 42% of the remaining delegates (271 of 564 including remaining super delegates) to win the Republican Presidential nomination on a first vote at the convention. After that first vote, the analysis becomes much more complex because pledged delegates cease to be pledged to their candidate at that point. The magic number at the Republican convention in Cleveland is 1,273 delegates.
It is mathematically impossible for anyone else to win on the first round, even if they are supported by all uncommitted delegates who can vote their preference in the first round. Ted Cruz has 571 pledged delegates and one super delegate who has endorsed him. John Kaisch has 157 pledged delegates. Marco Rubio has 167 pledged delegates. Ben Carson has 9 pledged delegates. Jeb Bush has 1 pledged delegate.
Rubio and Bush have given Cruz a lukewarm endorsement, and Kaisch has implied that he will join them in that lukewarm endorsement. Carson has given a lukewarm endorsement to Trump. But, none of those endorsements releases the delegates for those candidates in the first round or binds those delegates in later rounds.
Key Facts
Unlike the Democratic primary and caucus process, almost all of the remaining GOP races are winner take all, or winner take all partially at the state level and partially at the Congressional district level.
Republican party rule 40(b), which would have to be amended by a supermajority at the convention to change, limits the convention to considering only candidates who have won eight or more states, i.e. to either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Rule 40(b) excludes John Kaisch, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, or some "white knight" candidate who didn't run, from receiving the nomination unless both Trump and Cruz drop out of the race. (In theory, Kaisch could still win enough of the remaining states to qualify in addition to the one state, Ohio, that he has already won, but in reality this is simply impossible given his past performance and current polling among like Republican voters in the remaining primary states.)
Remaining Races With Predictions
The remaining Republican Presidential nomination races are as follows (with polling aggregated per Real Clear Politics when available):
May 3
Indiana - 57 delegates - Trump 37.5, Cruz 35.2, Kaisch 18.0 - No clear prediction
May 10
Nebraska - 36 delegates - Conventional wisdom favors Cruz (clean sweep) (Trump zero)
West Virginia - 34 delegates - Conventional wisdom favors Trump (almost clean sweep) (Trump 33)
May 17
Oregon - 28 delegates - No clear prediction
May 24
Washington - 44 delegates (proportional) - No clear prediction (At least 15 for Trump)
June 7
California - 172 delegates - Trump 45.7, Cruz 28.2, Kaisch 18.0 - No clear prediction
Montana - 27 delegates - Conventional wisdom favors Cruz (clean sweep) (Trump zero)
New Jersey - 51 delegates - Trump 52.0, Cruz 18.0, Kaisch 24.0 (Trump 51)
New Mexico - 24 delegates (proportional) - No clear prediction (At least 8 for Trump).
South Dakota - 29 delegates - Conventional wisdom favors Cruz (clean sweep) (Trump zero)
Analysis of The Rest Of Primary Season
It is much harder to robustly predict the outcome of the GOP race, because the winner take all nature of the contests (with incomplete Congressional district level data) creates a large swing in close races such as the Indiana race. The three way races also leave open the possibility of tactical moves in which Cruz or Kaisch drops out of contention in a state to give the other non-Trump candidate a shot at depriving Trump of those delegates.
And, the significant share of the remaining delegates that Trump needs leaves much less margin for error.
Analysis of the races give us 5 races to consider further and 84 Trump delegates from easier to predict races, so he would need 187 additional delegates from those 5 races and uncommitted delegates to win in the first round. If we make a conservative assumption that he will win at least a third of the delegates in the two states with a proportional allocation, his Trump's quota for Indiana, California and Oregon is 164 delegates out of the 257 delegates at stake in those states.
Trump leads in polling in both Indiana and California, which certainly gives him a viable shot at a first round win of the nomination and makes him even more of a front runner than he would have been otherwise. He not only leads in delegates, but has a path to victory paved with states where he leads in the polls.
But, it is close in Indiana where the close race could make for a wide swing of possibilities. Certainly, Trump gets some Congressional district delegates and Cruz gets other Congressional district delegates in a close race, but a switch of Kaisch voters to Cruz, as the those two candidates suggested briefly, could shift the balance decisively to Cruz in Indiana and deny Trump any delegates from Indiana.
Oregon sits between Trump territory and Cruz territory and I have seen no polling from this mixed winner take all state, so it is hard to predict.
Most California delegates are awarded at the Congressional district level, rather than at the state level where Trump should win if current polling holds up, so neither Trump nor Cruz will get all of California's delegates in all probability, but the polling seems to favor Trump decisively in California overall.
If Trump wins decisively in Indiana, he will probably win the GOP nomination on the first round, as there is little else to dent his momentum before the race goes to California. But, if Trump loses decisively in Indiana, he has even odds at best of winning a first round vote in the Convention.
At this point, I give Trump a 60% chance of winning on the first round.
Analysis of a Possible Contested Convention
If Trump secures 1,237 pledged delegates backing him in the first round of the convention, or falls a few delegates short but manages to win the backing of the handful of GOP super delegates in the first round, it is all over and Trump is the GOP nominee.
But, if Trump fails, the question is whether the Convention would suspend Rule 40(b) to allow someone other than Trump or Cruz to be considered, and if not, whether Trump or Cruz would win in a second round vote at the Convention.
Trump will undisputedly have secured more delegates by far, more of the popular vote by far, and more states in the Republican primary than Cruz or anyone else. A Convention vote for Cruz will look like a coup and weaken him, perhaps irremediably with Trump supporters. In contrast, supporters of other candidates may be disillusioned by a Trump win, but aren't nearly as likely to bolt the party in the end and won't be in a position to claim that Trump's win was illegitimate.
Trump isn't loved by the GOP establishment, but most of the candidates who were eliminated from the race after winning delegates (except Carson) have reluctantly endorsed Cruz, but almost nobody in the GOP establishment likes Cruz. For example, former Speaker of the House Hastert denounced Cruz as Lucifer incarnate yesterday. And, Trump has a much greater position to wheel and deal with personal or political favors for delegates than Cruz who has fewer resources and more unbreakable political commitments (and is simply less of a negotiator).
Cruz has tried hard to plant disloyal individuals as Trump delegates, and maybe he's succeeded. It is hard to know as an outsider to the process.
I give Trump at least a 55% chance of winning in a second round vote against Cruz. Combined with my prediction that he has a 60% chance of winning on the first round, this gives Trump an 88% chance of winning the GOP nomination in my estimation, with Cruz having perhaps a 10% chance of winning the nomination, and some other white knight having perhaps a 2% chance.
The crystal ball will be much less cloudy on Tuesday night when we have the results from Indiana.
Onto the General Election
In a Trump v. Clinton race, I would give Clinton an 80%-90% chance of winning, call it 85% to split the difference. Her current margin in national polls over Trump is almost thee standard deviations, but I expect that to fall to quite a bit more than one standard deviation, but less than two standard deviations (95% chance) by the time the general election rolls along as Trump positions himself closer to the center and moderates his publicly expressed views and maybe even apologizes for some of his previous incendiary statement.
In a Cruz v. Clinton race, I would give Clinton a 75% chance of winning which is probably an underestimate given the legitimacy issues that Cruz will face and the fact that lots of Americans haven't yet had time to get to know him and that doing so will reduce his esteem in the eyes of the average voter. Clinton leads Cruz in national polls by about one standard deviation, but I expect that the gap will grow over time.
In a White Knight v. Clinton race, I would give Clinton a 50% chance of winning (given Kaisch's strong polling against Clinton, but the true legitimacy problem that any such candidate would face).
This gives us a 16.7% chance of a Republican President in the 2016 general election and a 82% chance of a President Clinton and a 1.3% or so chance of a President Sanders (considering less than 2% but more than 1% chance of him being the nominee and the strong likelihood that he would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election under those circumstances).
So the odds regarding the likelihood of various persons being our next President in my estimation are:
* President Hillary Clinton 82%
* President Donald Trump 13.2%
* President Cruz 2.5%
* President Sanders 1.3%
* President Kaisch 1.0%
* Democratic President 5/6th
* Republican President 1/6th
Democratic Presidential Nomination Race Recap
As I will explain below, there is something like a 98% chance that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States. You can safely ignore all developments in the remainder of the Democratic Party primary season and not miss anything.
Pay attention to the GOP race between Trump and Cruz instead, where there is at least a ghost of a chance of something interesting happening, even though Trump is overwhelmingly favored there as well.
The Results So Far
Clinton needs 17.4% of the remaining delegates (207 more) to win the Democratic Presidential nomination.
She leads Sanders in pledged delegates 1666 to 1359 (55% of those awarded so far) with 1,016 pledged delegates left to be awarded. A majority of the pledged delegates is 2,021, a threshold which she needs 355 more pledged delegates to surpass (about 35% of the remaining pledged delegates). Sanders needs to win 65% of the remaining pledged delegates to win a majority of the pledged delegates which he needs to make a moral claim that the super delegates should shift their support to him (in the absence of some new scandal impairing Hillary Clinton's prospects that provide an alternative basis to make this claim).
Clinton needs 720 delegates to have an outright majority of all of the delegates in the convention before even considering a single super delegate. This is only 84 delegates more than she would get in the worst case realistic scenario for Clinton that I outline below, in which she gets at least 636 more pledged delegates, something that could very conceivably happen or at least come very close to happening, if she wins 40%-45% in states where Sanders is favored (instead of the 20% that I've assumed) and 70%+ in states where she is a strong favorite (instead of the 50% that I've assumed) - which would win her about 67 more delegates than I have assumed in a realistic worst case scenario for her.
She leads Sanders in super delegates 510 to 41, with 174 super delegates still undecided at this point. She has endorsements from more than 92% of the already committed super delegates and from 70% of all of the outstanding super delegates.
Key Facts
All Democratic primaries and caucuses in the Presidential race allocate delegates proportionally.
The winner will be decided in the first round vote at the Democratic National Convention, because only two candidates are winning.
Clinton has gotten at least 20% of the vote in every state except Vermont, where she came close.
Remaining Races With Predictions
The remaining Democratic Presidential nomination races are as follows (with polling aggregated per Real Clear Politics when available):
May 3
Indiana - 83 delegates - Clinton 49.6%, Sanders 43% (Clinton expected delegates 41)
May 7
Guam - 7 delegates (Clinton expected delegates at least 2)
May 10
West Virginia - 29 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Clinton in West Virginia (Clinton expected delegates at least 15)
May 17
Kentucky - 55 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Clinton in Kentucky (Clinton expected delegates at least 28)
Oregon - 61 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Sanders in Oregon (Clinton expected delegates at least 12)
June 4
Virgin Islands - 7 delegates (Clinton expected delegates at least 2)
June 5
Puerto Rico - 60 delegates (Clinton expected delegates at least 12)
June 7
California - 475 delegates - Clinton 49.0%, Sanders 42.3% (Clinton expected delegates more than 238)
Montana - 21 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Sanders in Montana (Clinton expected delegates at least 4)
New Jersey - 126 delegates - Clinton 51%, Sanders 42% (Clinton expected delegates more than 63)
New Mexico - 34 delegates (Clinton expected delegates at least 7)
North Dakota - 18 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Sanders in North Dakota (Clinton expected delegates at least 4)
South Dakota - 20 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Sanders in South Dakota (Clinton expected delegates at least 4)
June 14
District of Columbia - 20 delegates (Clinton expected delegates at least 4).
Conclusion
Minimum expected additional Clinton delegates assuming 20% where polling is not available and she is not clearly favored by conventional wisdom, 50% where polling is available and she is favored by conventional wisdom, and per her polling assuming all undecided voters go to Sanders where polling is available: 636
This is basically a worst realistic case scenario. In it, she is almost sure to win both a majority of the pledged delegates and a majority of all of the delegates by a wide margin.
This prediction is highly robust because the assumptions made are very conservative and because the proportional delegate allocation rules make huge shifts in the popular vote necessary to cause significant shifts in the delegate count, especially when so many of the delegates have already been pledged, buffering any shift in the late polling that could influence the number of delegates awarded.
In this scenario, she can be abandoned by 84% of her super delegates and still win the race. And, there is no reason to expect that even half of her super delegates will abandon her in favor of Sanders if Sanders does not win even a majority of the pledged delegates, which he will not.
In reality, Hillary Clinton will almost surely win more than 636 pledged delegates in the remaining races, and could afford to lose even more of her super delegates and still win. Since Clinton's super delegate advantage will be a non-issue, the legitimacy of the nomination process will be untarnished, and Sanders will almost certainly acknowledge defeat and urge his supporters to back Clinton in the general election.
The odds of Sanders winning the Democratic Presidential nomination is much less than 1% in the absence of a major new scandal implicating Hillary Clinton, or a major deterioration in Hillary Clinton's health (e.g. an assassination prior to the Democratic National Convention like the one that killed Robert Kennedy). The odds of either of those things happening is at most 1-2% or so in my estimation.
The odds the Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Presidential nominee is on the order of 98%.
The Sanders campaign has basically conceded this mathematical reality, has laid off hundreds of staffers as a result, and is now focusing on putting together a large slate of delegates to influence the party's platform and spreading his message, rather than on winning the Presidential nomination itself.
Pay attention to the GOP race between Trump and Cruz instead, where there is at least a ghost of a chance of something interesting happening, even though Trump is overwhelmingly favored there as well.
The Results So Far
Clinton needs 17.4% of the remaining delegates (207 more) to win the Democratic Presidential nomination.
She leads Sanders in pledged delegates 1666 to 1359 (55% of those awarded so far) with 1,016 pledged delegates left to be awarded. A majority of the pledged delegates is 2,021, a threshold which she needs 355 more pledged delegates to surpass (about 35% of the remaining pledged delegates). Sanders needs to win 65% of the remaining pledged delegates to win a majority of the pledged delegates which he needs to make a moral claim that the super delegates should shift their support to him (in the absence of some new scandal impairing Hillary Clinton's prospects that provide an alternative basis to make this claim).
Clinton needs 720 delegates to have an outright majority of all of the delegates in the convention before even considering a single super delegate. This is only 84 delegates more than she would get in the worst case realistic scenario for Clinton that I outline below, in which she gets at least 636 more pledged delegates, something that could very conceivably happen or at least come very close to happening, if she wins 40%-45% in states where Sanders is favored (instead of the 20% that I've assumed) and 70%+ in states where she is a strong favorite (instead of the 50% that I've assumed) - which would win her about 67 more delegates than I have assumed in a realistic worst case scenario for her.
She leads Sanders in super delegates 510 to 41, with 174 super delegates still undecided at this point. She has endorsements from more than 92% of the already committed super delegates and from 70% of all of the outstanding super delegates.
Key Facts
All Democratic primaries and caucuses in the Presidential race allocate delegates proportionally.
The winner will be decided in the first round vote at the Democratic National Convention, because only two candidates are winning.
Clinton has gotten at least 20% of the vote in every state except Vermont, where she came close.
Remaining Races With Predictions
The remaining Democratic Presidential nomination races are as follows (with polling aggregated per Real Clear Politics when available):
May 3
Indiana - 83 delegates - Clinton 49.6%, Sanders 43% (Clinton expected delegates 41)
May 7
Guam - 7 delegates (Clinton expected delegates at least 2)
May 10
West Virginia - 29 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Clinton in West Virginia (Clinton expected delegates at least 15)
May 17
Kentucky - 55 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Clinton in Kentucky (Clinton expected delegates at least 28)
Oregon - 61 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Sanders in Oregon (Clinton expected delegates at least 12)
June 4
Virgin Islands - 7 delegates (Clinton expected delegates at least 2)
June 5
Puerto Rico - 60 delegates (Clinton expected delegates at least 12)
June 7
California - 475 delegates - Clinton 49.0%, Sanders 42.3% (Clinton expected delegates more than 238)
Montana - 21 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Sanders in Montana (Clinton expected delegates at least 4)
New Jersey - 126 delegates - Clinton 51%, Sanders 42% (Clinton expected delegates more than 63)
New Mexico - 34 delegates (Clinton expected delegates at least 7)
North Dakota - 18 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Sanders in North Dakota (Clinton expected delegates at least 4)
South Dakota - 20 delegates - conventional wisdom favors Sanders in South Dakota (Clinton expected delegates at least 4)
June 14
District of Columbia - 20 delegates (Clinton expected delegates at least 4).
Conclusion
Minimum expected additional Clinton delegates assuming 20% where polling is not available and she is not clearly favored by conventional wisdom, 50% where polling is available and she is favored by conventional wisdom, and per her polling assuming all undecided voters go to Sanders where polling is available: 636
This is basically a worst realistic case scenario. In it, she is almost sure to win both a majority of the pledged delegates and a majority of all of the delegates by a wide margin.
This prediction is highly robust because the assumptions made are very conservative and because the proportional delegate allocation rules make huge shifts in the popular vote necessary to cause significant shifts in the delegate count, especially when so many of the delegates have already been pledged, buffering any shift in the late polling that could influence the number of delegates awarded.
In this scenario, she can be abandoned by 84% of her super delegates and still win the race. And, there is no reason to expect that even half of her super delegates will abandon her in favor of Sanders if Sanders does not win even a majority of the pledged delegates, which he will not.
In reality, Hillary Clinton will almost surely win more than 636 pledged delegates in the remaining races, and could afford to lose even more of her super delegates and still win. Since Clinton's super delegate advantage will be a non-issue, the legitimacy of the nomination process will be untarnished, and Sanders will almost certainly acknowledge defeat and urge his supporters to back Clinton in the general election.
The odds of Sanders winning the Democratic Presidential nomination is much less than 1% in the absence of a major new scandal implicating Hillary Clinton, or a major deterioration in Hillary Clinton's health (e.g. an assassination prior to the Democratic National Convention like the one that killed Robert Kennedy). The odds of either of those things happening is at most 1-2% or so in my estimation.
The odds the Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Presidential nominee is on the order of 98%.
The Sanders campaign has basically conceded this mathematical reality, has laid off hundreds of staffers as a result, and is now focusing on putting together a large slate of delegates to influence the party's platform and spreading his message, rather than on winning the Presidential nomination itself.
Secular Parenting Usually Produces Good Kids
Secular Parenting
One of the things that makes me most proud is that my children, who have been raised non-religiously, have each been publicly recognized for their good character both in elementary school and again middle school. My daughter, in her pitch to become the President of George Washington High School's National Honor Society (spoiler: she won) told her audience that "service is my thing."
My family's experience isn't unique.
Note also, with respect to the prison population, that the average incarcerated person is younger than the average adult, because most crimes are committed by adolescents and young adults. A random sample of U.S. adults with the same age and ethnic makeup as the population of adults incarcerated in the United States is much more likely to be religiously unaffiliated than that general population of the United States which includes a much larger share older adults who are much more likely to be religious.
Secular Living And Social Class
If your intuition is that this is a case of high socio-economic class values, or ethnic values, transmission from parents to children, you are mostly, but not entirely, wrong.
Non-Hispanic whites and people who are more educated or more affluent, are more likely to be secular. But, the differences in likelihood of being non-religious along class and ethnic lines are far more modest than most people would naively assume.
For example, people who are religiously "unaffiliated" make up about 20% of whites, 16% of Hispanics and 15% of African-Americans.
The breakdown (from the same source) by education is as follows:
The breakdown by income is similarly, only modestly tilted towards affluence relative to the general public:
An atheist or agnostic has the same likelihood of having "some college" or being in a lower middle income range as members of the U.S. general public, even though an atheist or agnostic is less likely to have no college education and is less likely to be in the lowest income category.
Secular population of the United States is much younger than the religiously affiliated population of the United States, however. "A plurality of atheists and agnostics (42%) are ages 18 to 29, and just 9% are 65 and older. By comparison, about one-fifth of the religiously affiliated (18%) are ages 18 to 29, and a similar portion are 65 and older (19%)."
This is not because secular people tend to convert to a religion when they become adults. It is uncommon for people raised non-religiously to adopt a religion as an adult. President Obama, who was raised non-religiously, but converted to Christianity as an adult, is an outlier in that respect.
Complicating parenting issues, however, there is also a significant gender gap in religious affiliation. Men are much more likely to not have a religious affiliation or to be actively atheist or agnostic, than women.
Secular people age 30+ are also about 10% less likely to be married than religious people in that age bracket (only some of which is attributable to a younger age distribution within that age bracket), and secular people under age 30 are almost half as likely to be married as religious people in that age bracket (again, with only some of that difference attributable to a younger age distribution within that age bracket).
Most secular people were raised in religious households. Only 4% of households in the 1950s that produced the Baby Boomers were non-religious, and only 11% of the households that produced Generation X were non-religious. Far larger shares of both of these age groups are non-religious today. But, given that 30% of people aged 18-29 are religiously unaffiliated, the age people are most likely to be when they first have children, this may not be true for much longer.
What Do Secular People Believe?
About three in ten people who are not religiously affiliated specifically identify as atheist or agnostic.
About one in ten religiously unaffiliated people are looking for a religion that is right for them, but haven't found it yet.
About four in ten religiously unaffiliated people consider themselves to be "spiritual but not religious."
The likelihood that someone without a religious affiliation will have spiritual or supernatural beliefs not commonly viewed as religious in the United States (e.g. believing in astrology, ghosts, or the existence of magical spells) is roughly the same as the likelihood that religiously affiliated people hold such beliefs.
One of the things that makes me most proud is that my children, who have been raised non-religiously, have each been publicly recognized for their good character both in elementary school and again middle school. My daughter, in her pitch to become the President of George Washington High School's National Honor Society (spoiler: she won) told her audience that "service is my thing."
My family's experience isn't unique.
More children are “growing up godless” than at any other time in our nation's history. . .
From the Los Angeles Times.Far from being dysfunctional, nihilistic and rudderless without the security and rectitude of religion, secular households provide a sound and solid foundation for children, according to Vern Bengston, a USC professor of gerontology and sociology. For nearly 40 years, Bengston has overseen the Longitudinal Study of Generations, which has become the largest study of religion and family life conducted across several generational cohorts in the United States. When Bengston noticed the growth of nonreligious Americans becoming increasingly pronounced, he decided in 2013 to add secular families to his study in an attempt to understand how family life and intergenerational influences play out among the religionless. He was surprised by what he found: High levels of family solidarity and emotional closeness between parents and nonreligious youth, and strong ethical standards and moral values that had been clearly articulated as they were imparted to the next generation.“Many nonreligious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious' parents in our study,” Bengston told me. “The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterized by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.”[N]onreligious family life is replete with its own sustaining moral values and enriching ethical precepts. Chief among those: rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of “questioning everything” and, far above all, empathy. . . .[S]ecular teenagers are far less likely to care what the “cool kids” think, or express a need to fit in with them, than their religious peers. When these teens mature into “godless” adults, they exhibit less racism than their religious counterparts, according to a 2010 Duke University study. Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults. . . .Secular adults are more likely to understand and accept the science concerning global warming, and to support women's equality and gay rights. . . . Atheists were almost absent from our prison population as of the late 1990s, comprising less than half of 1% of those behind bars, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics. This echoes what the criminology field has documented for more than a century — the unaffiliated and the nonreligious engage in far fewer crimes.Democratic countries with the lowest levels of religious faith and participation today — such as Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Belgium and New Zealand — have among the lowest violent crime rates in the world and enjoy remarkably high levels of societal well-being. If secular people couldn't raise well-functioning, moral children, then a preponderance of them in a given society would spell societal disaster. Yet quite the opposite is the case.
Note also, with respect to the prison population, that the average incarcerated person is younger than the average adult, because most crimes are committed by adolescents and young adults. A random sample of U.S. adults with the same age and ethnic makeup as the population of adults incarcerated in the United States is much more likely to be religiously unaffiliated than that general population of the United States which includes a much larger share older adults who are much more likely to be religious.
Secular Living And Social Class
If your intuition is that this is a case of high socio-economic class values, or ethnic values, transmission from parents to children, you are mostly, but not entirely, wrong.
Non-Hispanic whites and people who are more educated or more affluent, are more likely to be secular. But, the differences in likelihood of being non-religious along class and ethnic lines are far more modest than most people would naively assume.
For example, people who are religiously "unaffiliated" make up about 20% of whites, 16% of Hispanics and 15% of African-Americans.
The breakdown (from the same source) by education is as follows:
The breakdown by income is similarly, only modestly tilted towards affluence relative to the general public:
Secular population of the United States is much younger than the religiously affiliated population of the United States, however. "A plurality of atheists and agnostics (42%) are ages 18 to 29, and just 9% are 65 and older. By comparison, about one-fifth of the religiously affiliated (18%) are ages 18 to 29, and a similar portion are 65 and older (19%)."
This is not because secular people tend to convert to a religion when they become adults. It is uncommon for people raised non-religiously to adopt a religion as an adult. President Obama, who was raised non-religiously, but converted to Christianity as an adult, is an outlier in that respect.
Complicating parenting issues, however, there is also a significant gender gap in religious affiliation. Men are much more likely to not have a religious affiliation or to be actively atheist or agnostic, than women.
Secular people age 30+ are also about 10% less likely to be married than religious people in that age bracket (only some of which is attributable to a younger age distribution within that age bracket), and secular people under age 30 are almost half as likely to be married as religious people in that age bracket (again, with only some of that difference attributable to a younger age distribution within that age bracket).
Most secular people were raised in religious households. Only 4% of households in the 1950s that produced the Baby Boomers were non-religious, and only 11% of the households that produced Generation X were non-religious. Far larger shares of both of these age groups are non-religious today. But, given that 30% of people aged 18-29 are religiously unaffiliated, the age people are most likely to be when they first have children, this may not be true for much longer.
What Do Secular People Believe?
About three in ten people who are not religiously affiliated specifically identify as atheist or agnostic.
About one in ten religiously unaffiliated people are looking for a religion that is right for them, but haven't found it yet.
About four in ten religiously unaffiliated people consider themselves to be "spiritual but not religious."
The likelihood that someone without a religious affiliation will have spiritual or supernatural beliefs not commonly viewed as religious in the United States (e.g. believing in astrology, ghosts, or the existence of magical spells) is roughly the same as the likelihood that religiously affiliated people hold such beliefs.
U.S. Teen Birth Rate At All Time Low
Teen birth rates are lower now than they have ever been in the history of the United States, although they remain high by the standard of other developed countries.
According to the Center for Disease Control the trend towards lower teen pregnancy rates has continued with only modest interruption since 1991 and was particularly pronounced in the eight years from 2006 to 2014 (the latest year for which data are available). "In 1991, the birth rate among females age 15 to 19 was 61.8 per 1,000. As of 2014, that number has declined to 24.2 per 1,000."
This has reduced racial and ethnic disparities in teen birth rates. Hispanic teen birth rates (38.0 per 1,000) are now about 9% more than black teen birth rates (34.9 per 1,000), which are in turn about twice the white teen birth rate (17.3 per 1,000).
Greater use of contraception and especially long term contraception has been an important factor in the change: "use of long-acting contraceptives like IUDs and implants jumped from 1 percent of teens a decade ago to 7 percent in 2014." But, teens are also simply having sex less often.
Abortion rates per teen pregnancy have been more or less constant during this time period (resulting in dramatically fewer teen abortions as a result).
According to the Center for Disease Control the trend towards lower teen pregnancy rates has continued with only modest interruption since 1991 and was particularly pronounced in the eight years from 2006 to 2014 (the latest year for which data are available). "In 1991, the birth rate among females age 15 to 19 was 61.8 per 1,000. As of 2014, that number has declined to 24.2 per 1,000."
Birth rates are down a whopping 51 percent among Hispanics age 15 to 19 since 2006, and down 44 percent among black teens, according to a survey of census data by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Teen pregnancy rates among whites also fell by a third.From here.
This has reduced racial and ethnic disparities in teen birth rates. Hispanic teen birth rates (38.0 per 1,000) are now about 9% more than black teen birth rates (34.9 per 1,000), which are in turn about twice the white teen birth rate (17.3 per 1,000).
Greater use of contraception and especially long term contraception has been an important factor in the change: "use of long-acting contraceptives like IUDs and implants jumped from 1 percent of teens a decade ago to 7 percent in 2014." But, teens are also simply having sex less often.
Abortion rates per teen pregnancy have been more or less constant during this time period (resulting in dramatically fewer teen abortions as a result).
28 April 2016
Dealing With Writer's Block
A very constructive guest post at Charlie's blog discusses some of the most common causes of writer's block (and it very often does have mundane causes) and how to address them.
The opening line, a long neglected glasses prescription that is causing non-specific symptoms that is wrecking havoc with your life, is something that actually happened to me two or three years after graduating from law school and then moving to Colorado. I had been having awful headaches for months, a number of inexplicable close calls while driving, and just generally felt awful.
I went home for Thanksgiving, stopped by my usual childhood optometrist, because I hadn't been for a while and wanted a new style of glasses for the new Western Colorado me, and voila, all was explained. My prescription was much, much worse than five years earlier when I'd gotten my last pair of glasses towards the end of my college career. And, in just a few days, all of the symptoms that I hadn't know that I'd been suffering from were gone.
Sometimes problems with very complex effects have very simple causes.
Blaha and Frazier Fail To Make Colorado GOP Senate Primary
The primary in the race to be the Republican candidate to oppose incumbent Democrat Michael Bennett will have just two candidates:
* Daryll Glenn, an African-American former military office who was the sole candidate to make it on the ballot via the caucus process (and who will command the top line on the ballot as a result) who has raised almost nothing for his campaign so far, and
* Jack Graham, a retired insurance salesman and former CSU athletic director who has raised more money than any other candidate and is one of the most liberal GOP candidates in the state (and was a Democrat until not so long ago), who got onto the ballot by Petition. By the end of March he'd raced about $300,000 and loaned himself another $1,000,000, although a big chunk of that was spent to get on the ballot via the petition process.
Neither of them have ever previously held any elected office. CORRECTION: Glenn in an El Paso County Commissioner. Graham is a first time candidate. I apologize for the inadvertent error. Glenn's political experience may give him an edge over Graham in addition to his conservative bona fides. Advantage Glenn. END CORRECTION.
These are the only two candidates who will appear on the ballot because the other three candidates who tried to petition onto the ballot Keyser, Blaha and Frazier all failed to submit enough signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State to get on the ballot. Both will probably appeal this decision, but Blaha and Frazier each have bigger shortfalls than Keyser did and will be hard pressed to win an appeal.
An unnamed legal expert thinks Keyser will get back on the ballot when a judge rules in his challenge tomorrow. I am far more skeptical.
Primary election ballots must be turned in by voters by June 28, 2016, and given Colorado's penchant for mail in ballots, many will be cast far sooner. The remainder of the Republican U.S. Senate campaign in Colorado, now that we finally know who will be on the ballot (subject to appeals in the next few days) will be highly compressed.
The primary will tell whether conservative politics and political experience (which clearly favor Glenn) or money and name recognition (which favor Graham) matter more in the GOP primary.
Incumbent Senator Michael Bennet has lots of things going for him in this race. He has a mountain of campaign funds. He has more and more relevant political experience than either candidate. He can legitimately say that anything that the unpopular Congress has done is not his fault. He can benefit for Hillary Clinton's coattails and from the generally higher Presidential year voter turnout that usually favors Democrats. He has a statewide campaign network in place and ready to go. He doesn't have to fight off a primary contestant so had can campaign as a moderate Democrat just as he has governed.
On the other hand, neither Glenn nor Graham are your run of the mill Republican candidates. The political winds seem to be favoring outsiders this year. And, no race other than the Presidential race will get more free media this year in Colorado, so a lack of funds is somewhat less of a handicap.
Still, both of these candidates are clearly from the Republican B team and both face long odds to win in November this year.
* Daryll Glenn, an African-American former military office who was the sole candidate to make it on the ballot via the caucus process (and who will command the top line on the ballot as a result) who has raised almost nothing for his campaign so far, and
* Jack Graham, a retired insurance salesman and former CSU athletic director who has raised more money than any other candidate and is one of the most liberal GOP candidates in the state (and was a Democrat until not so long ago), who got onto the ballot by Petition. By the end of March he'd raced about $300,000 and loaned himself another $1,000,000, although a big chunk of that was spent to get on the ballot via the petition process.
These are the only two candidates who will appear on the ballot because the other three candidates who tried to petition onto the ballot Keyser, Blaha and Frazier all failed to submit enough signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State to get on the ballot. Both will probably appeal this decision, but Blaha and Frazier each have bigger shortfalls than Keyser did and will be hard pressed to win an appeal.
An unnamed legal expert thinks Keyser will get back on the ballot when a judge rules in his challenge tomorrow. I am far more skeptical.
Primary election ballots must be turned in by voters by June 28, 2016, and given Colorado's penchant for mail in ballots, many will be cast far sooner. The remainder of the Republican U.S. Senate campaign in Colorado, now that we finally know who will be on the ballot (subject to appeals in the next few days) will be highly compressed.
The primary will tell whether conservative politics and political experience (which clearly favor Glenn) or money and name recognition (which favor Graham) matter more in the GOP primary.
Incumbent Senator Michael Bennet has lots of things going for him in this race. He has a mountain of campaign funds. He has more and more relevant political experience than either candidate. He can legitimately say that anything that the unpopular Congress has done is not his fault. He can benefit for Hillary Clinton's coattails and from the generally higher Presidential year voter turnout that usually favors Democrats. He has a statewide campaign network in place and ready to go. He doesn't have to fight off a primary contestant so had can campaign as a moderate Democrat just as he has governed.
On the other hand, neither Glenn nor Graham are your run of the mill Republican candidates. The political winds seem to be favoring outsiders this year. And, no race other than the Presidential race will get more free media this year in Colorado, so a lack of funds is somewhat less of a handicap.
Still, both of these candidates are clearly from the Republican B team and both face long odds to win in November this year.
Can You Copyright A Language?
A truly brilliant bilingual Klingon-English amicus brief argues that no one can claim a copyright in the constructed Klingon language. Some context is available here.
Among other things, it notes that legally binding weddings and contracts have been carried out in Klingon, government officials have made public announcements in Klingon, that it has one native speaker (I know the child's father personally), and that words spoken in Klingon have provided a basis for a criminal conviction.
Case law is cited by analogy, but the case is largely one of first impression.
Among other things, it notes that legally binding weddings and contracts have been carried out in Klingon, government officials have made public announcements in Klingon, that it has one native speaker (I know the child's father personally), and that words spoken in Klingon have provided a basis for a criminal conviction.
Case law is cited by analogy, but the case is largely one of first impression.
Technological Advances Continue Unabated
A lengthy blog post mentioned at Marginal Revolution recounts the really stunning capacity of scientists and engineers to relentlessly continue to make technological advances even in mature industries, with a compendium of charts and figures across a wide variety of industries.
The progress made in information technology, battery technology, energy efficiency, and solar panel prices are particularly impressive.
The progress made in information technology, battery technology, energy efficiency, and solar panel prices are particularly impressive.
8000 Posts
Between this blog and its sister blog, Dispatches at Turtle Island, including this post, I have now made 8,000 blog posts since July 3, 2005 when it all began, a little less than 11 years ago.
There have also been 6,484 comments published and not deleted in that time period (countless spam comments are deleted on a regular basis as are many accidental double posts by legitimate commenters).
Between the two blogs there have been more than 1.5 million page views since Wash Park Prophet began. Recently, there have been about 785 page views of the combined two blogs on an average day, although it varies a great deal, with posts that attract a great deal of interest (e.g. posts on state and local races during election season) often garnering far more interest, while other days are slow, particularly when I go a while without making any new posts.
There have also been 6,484 comments published and not deleted in that time period (countless spam comments are deleted on a regular basis as are many accidental double posts by legitimate commenters).
Between the two blogs there have been more than 1.5 million page views since Wash Park Prophet began. Recently, there have been about 785 page views of the combined two blogs on an average day, although it varies a great deal, with posts that attract a great deal of interest (e.g. posts on state and local races during election season) often garnering far more interest, while other days are slow, particularly when I go a while without making any new posts.
Life Imitates Art Again
It isn't unusual for the engineers who design military equipment to reference science fiction. For example, a whole line of sniper detection devices used by the U.S. military have names that reference the science fiction/western hybrid series Firefly. But, some defense industry engineers from China have taking the imitation of science fiction meme to a whole new level.
They've decided that the world needs real life Daleks.
Daleks from the British Science Fiction comedy "Dr. Who".
China's new armed guard robot called the Anbot:
Edward Snowden, the U.S.’s most famous whistleblower, tweeted of the Anbot from Russia: “Surely this will end well.”The Anbot will have either a Taser or electric cattle prod and will be used for guard duty, routine policing and riot control.
27 April 2016
Precedents Trump Texts
The following was recently posted at the Legal Theory Blog:
Unlike Lawrence Solum, I tend to think that David A. Strauss is not just right, but is rather obviously right in a descriptive sense of how constitutional law actually works in practice.
In the European civil law system, any judge can use the text of a statute to trump a statutory interpretation of that text. In the English common law system of jurisprudence, in contrast, precedents interpreting statutes are especially strong and are honored even when they call for an unnatural reading of the text, in order to promote certainty. The "super precedent" status of cases interpreting statutes, which can in principle easily be amended by the legislature doesn't apply with quite the same force in constitutional cases. But, the same general method of construing statutes in light of precedents still applies.
Examples of non-obvious interpretations of the United States Constitution that have the force of law as a result of precedents (not exclusively, but often, from the U.S. Supreme Court) are legion.
For example, there is no way that you could determine from the face of the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution that it codifies state sovereign immunity from suit.
David A. Strauss (University of Chicago Law School) has posted The Supreme Court, 2014 Term—Foreword: Does the Constitution Mean What it Says? (129 Harvard Law Review 1 (2015)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The conventional view is that constitutional law begins with the text of the Constitution and proceeds from there. But that misdescribes U.S. constitutional law. Controversies in constitutional law are, almost always, about the meaning and effect of precedents, not about the text. Many important principles of constitutional law are inconsistent with the most natural reading of the text. The precedents govern the text, rather than the other way around; the text becomes important only when there are few precedents.Constitutional law, in a word, is not a text-based system, but a mixed system in which provisions of the text are treated roughly like precedents: they are expanded, limited, qualified, reconceived, or all-but-ignored, depending on how the law develops, and on judgments about how the law should develop.
Highly recommended! Wrong, wrong, wrong! I think most readers of LTB have already read Strauss's wonderful and brave piece, but if not, download it while it's hot!| Permalink
Unlike Lawrence Solum, I tend to think that David A. Strauss is not just right, but is rather obviously right in a descriptive sense of how constitutional law actually works in practice.
In the European civil law system, any judge can use the text of a statute to trump a statutory interpretation of that text. In the English common law system of jurisprudence, in contrast, precedents interpreting statutes are especially strong and are honored even when they call for an unnatural reading of the text, in order to promote certainty. The "super precedent" status of cases interpreting statutes, which can in principle easily be amended by the legislature doesn't apply with quite the same force in constitutional cases. But, the same general method of construing statutes in light of precedents still applies.
Examples of non-obvious interpretations of the United States Constitution that have the force of law as a result of precedents (not exclusively, but often, from the U.S. Supreme Court) are legion.
For example, there is no way that you could determine from the face of the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution that it codifies state sovereign immunity from suit.
Another Week Of Primaries; More Certainty
* Clinton need just 18% of the remaining uncommitted delegates (pledged and super) to win the Democratic nomination. Almost all of the Democratic contests remaining are proportional.
It is virtually impossible for Sanders to become the Democratic party nominee at this point. It will take her until June 7, for her to seal the deal. But, by then, she will need only about 11% of the delegates remaining (or less) to cinch the nomination. In polling, Clinton and Sanders are currently neck and neck, and I can't think of any primary that Sanders has won by an 82-18 margin. Clinton can direly screw up once or twice in the next month and a half and still win out of sheer force of inertia.
Her odds of winning the Democratic nomination at this point are well in excess of 95%. Maybe 97-98% would be more realistic. In all likelihood, she will win the race for pledged delegates handily, in addition to dominating the ranks of the super-delegates and winning the "popular vote."
* Trump has 988 delegates after today and he needs 1237 (249 more). So, he needs about 43% of the remaining delegates, which would be a problem except that he is a decisive front runner in West Virginia, New Jersey and California, has a narrow lead in Indiana, and is likely to pick up a few extra delegates here and there, at least in the few states that award GOP delegates proportionately.
Trump may not have the cakewalk that Clinton has ahead of her for the remainder of the primary season. But, he can manage to be a fairly mediocre front runner and still cinch the nomination on a first round vote with pledged delegates alone.
And, it stands to reason that a front runner in the primary and caucus process nationwide is going to be so hated in Cleveland that he can't wrangle at least some uncommitted delegates. So, he can actually still win in the first round with some undetermined number of delegates less than 43% of those remaining. Certainly, Trumps path to the Republican Presidential nomination is much more straightforward than it is for anyone else.
Cruz needs a miracle. It is mathematically impossible for Cruz to win in the first round with the support of his pledged delegates even if Cruz wins every single remaining delegate in every single GOP primary remaining. The only shot Cruz has is to receive massive defections of pledged candidates in his favor in a second round of convention voting, and it isn't at all obvious that this would go his way in a two way race between Trump and Cruz who are the only two candidates even eligible to run under current GOP rules that are unlikely to be changed this year.
Trump needs a few weeks that don't absolutely suck.
Trumps odds of winning the Republican nomination are about 75%, with Cruz at about 20% and everyone else combined at less than 5%. Indeed, those numbers are probably unduly hard on Trump and too favorable to Cruz and unnamed white knights. Maybe the real numbers are more like 85%-13%-2%.
Also, any Cruz win must entail what amounts to a GOP establishment coup. Trump is pretty much guaranteed to have a plurality of the delegates and votes going into the convention.
It is virtually impossible for Sanders to become the Democratic party nominee at this point. It will take her until June 7, for her to seal the deal. But, by then, she will need only about 11% of the delegates remaining (or less) to cinch the nomination. In polling, Clinton and Sanders are currently neck and neck, and I can't think of any primary that Sanders has won by an 82-18 margin. Clinton can direly screw up once or twice in the next month and a half and still win out of sheer force of inertia.
Her odds of winning the Democratic nomination at this point are well in excess of 95%. Maybe 97-98% would be more realistic. In all likelihood, she will win the race for pledged delegates handily, in addition to dominating the ranks of the super-delegates and winning the "popular vote."
* Trump has 988 delegates after today and he needs 1237 (249 more). So, he needs about 43% of the remaining delegates, which would be a problem except that he is a decisive front runner in West Virginia, New Jersey and California, has a narrow lead in Indiana, and is likely to pick up a few extra delegates here and there, at least in the few states that award GOP delegates proportionately.
Trump may not have the cakewalk that Clinton has ahead of her for the remainder of the primary season. But, he can manage to be a fairly mediocre front runner and still cinch the nomination on a first round vote with pledged delegates alone.
And, it stands to reason that a front runner in the primary and caucus process nationwide is going to be so hated in Cleveland that he can't wrangle at least some uncommitted delegates. So, he can actually still win in the first round with some undetermined number of delegates less than 43% of those remaining. Certainly, Trumps path to the Republican Presidential nomination is much more straightforward than it is for anyone else.
Cruz needs a miracle. It is mathematically impossible for Cruz to win in the first round with the support of his pledged delegates even if Cruz wins every single remaining delegate in every single GOP primary remaining. The only shot Cruz has is to receive massive defections of pledged candidates in his favor in a second round of convention voting, and it isn't at all obvious that this would go his way in a two way race between Trump and Cruz who are the only two candidates even eligible to run under current GOP rules that are unlikely to be changed this year.
Trump needs a few weeks that don't absolutely suck.
Trumps odds of winning the Republican nomination are about 75%, with Cruz at about 20% and everyone else combined at less than 5%. Indeed, those numbers are probably unduly hard on Trump and too favorable to Cruz and unnamed white knights. Maybe the real numbers are more like 85%-13%-2%.
Also, any Cruz win must entail what amounts to a GOP establishment coup. Trump is pretty much guaranteed to have a plurality of the delegates and votes going into the convention.
26 April 2016
Econ 102 Didn't Tell Me This Could Happen
When I took macroeconomics in college, we assumed that interest rates would always be positive. Who would buy a government bond with a negative interest rate, we thought? Obviously that couldn't happen.
Except, it has, in both Japan and Germany, both of which are respectable industrialized countries who financial policies are not run by lunatics.
Except, it has, in both Japan and Germany, both of which are respectable industrialized countries who financial policies are not run by lunatics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)