tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54013035131471727592024-03-13T08:17:35.816-04:00State of ThoughtHere be dragons of economics, politics, and news ... traditionally non-partisan, but we've got to admit that we find one of the parties makes that rather hard to maintain in the present dayState of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.comBlogger220125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-69875619433013090362018-07-19T17:03:00.003-04:002018-07-19T17:03:54.359-04:00Is Russia linked to Republican voter suppression laws via the NRA?<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: #14171a; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: "Segoe UI",Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-spacing: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">We know that in at least one state and possibly all of the key states, Republican voter suppression laws turned the 2016 Presidential election.<br /><br />How much funding did the NRA put into these efforts? And how much of that came from Russia?</span>State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-45984737829275270022018-07-18T10:56:00.000-04:002018-07-18T10:56:03.693-04:00Trump's Treason Summit<div>
One has to wonder: what could move Republicans to oppose Trump if not his Treasonous attacks on America from a summit with Putin? What is backing the word of a foreign dictator whose interests oppose our own over the word of our whole US intelligence community if not "giving [enemies] aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere"?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EnWfwthQDDk/W09RuMA7SYI/AAAAAAAAAwg/2rr-cR9z9qwmyhRaG-QLcy-INz_PiUGHwCLcBGAs/s1600/Treason.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Trump committing treason with Putin at Helsinki summit under US Code title 18 section 2381; treasonous traitor TrumpRussia TrumpPutin us intelligence" border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="840" height="365" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EnWfwthQDDk/W09RuMA7SYI/AAAAAAAAAwg/2rr-cR9z9qwmyhRaG-QLcy-INz_PiUGHwCLcBGAs/s400/Treason.png" title="Trump and Putin at Helsinki" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sure, he's since read a statement -- or should we say script -- to walk back one small word of what he said. Not that his reading seemed sincere, but even if it had, consider how the original "would" fits much more with everything else he said before and after than the "wouldn't" that he claimed when reading his script.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7QdYL5W2kj8/W09TJVugiLI/AAAAAAAAAws/rui6rultrIIA5NWwVrDt-n-BVd_76PvswCLcBGAs/s1600/SummitContext.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Context of Trump's statements about Putin and US investigations of Trump campaign and Russian interference in the election; walk-back back-pedal Treason Trump Russia Putin intelligence investigation elections Helsinki would wouldn't" border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7QdYL5W2kj8/W09TJVugiLI/AAAAAAAAAws/rui6rultrIIA5NWwVrDt-n-BVd_76PvswCLcBGAs/s400/SummitContext.png" title="Context of Trump's statements about Putin and US investigations of Trump campaign and Russian interference in the election" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-54546994697463062672017-12-02T21:08:00.000-05:002017-12-02T21:08:33.877-05:00Those who do not learn history ..."Those who do not learn history ..."<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_127112406"><br /></a>
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/30/im-a-depression-historian-the-gop-tax-bill-is-straight-out-of-1929/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/30/im-a-depression-historian-the-gop-tax-bill-is-straight-out-of-1929/</a>State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-62874601674373697492017-11-01T11:36:00.000-04:002017-11-01T11:36:36.023-04:00John Kelly and Robert E Lee<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_59f9e8683086f3711061153">
Of particular interest: the pattern.<br />
<br />
Secretary Kelly <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/10/31/actually-john-kelly-the-failed-compromise-to-avoid-civil-war-would-have-enshrined-slavery/" target="_blank">praises traitorous, insurrection-leader Lee</a> (who was never legally a general), implying that Lee wouldn't have opposed compromise.<br />
<br />
But the slaver side -- Lee's side -- refused compromise. The abolitionists worked hard to avoid war, arguably far harder than they should have. The their efforts to compromise with slavers might be the greatest taint on the legacy of the abolitionists. In the end, Lee's side utterly rejected wor<span class="text_exposed_show">king with those who wanted progress, even if Lee's side would have gotten excessive concessions in the bargain.</span><br />
<div class="text_exposed_show">
<br />
Today, we can see this in the party whose members typically praise Lee, today's Republicans. Today's Democrats were so desperate to improve healthcare that -- failing to get Republicans to accept their ideal -- they settled for adopting a Republican plan (which became Romneycare and then the ACA / Obamacare) ... just to have some chance of finding a way to compromise and get some meager improvement. But the Republican party rejected compromise, even if that compromise was built upon accepting their designs, their approach.<br />
<br />
It's no wonder they praise the Lee's of history. They are the inheritors of Lee's anti-compromise, anti-progress ways in all but name.<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>
</div>
State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-38417689448965025942017-09-15T12:29:00.000-04:002017-09-15T12:33:37.830-04:00The Latest WSJ Revelations on Flynn and Russian Involvement While On the NSC"According to the [Wall Street] Journal, the ethics advisors on the National Security Council actually told him to remove himself from this project but quote the activity continued." - Rachel Maddow<br />
<br />
See the rest in "<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/new-revelations-deepen-flynn-legal-jeopardy-1046213699539" target="_blank">New revelations deepen Flynn legal jeopardy</a>".<br />
<br />State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-71712808537578799332017-08-09T10:11:00.002-04:002017-08-09T10:11:16.017-04:00Payroll CoastingA picture of coasting:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pd-_mdjEqvk/WYsPqN1p1FI/AAAAAAAAAvI/A68sLaHe8x8BozXACNn-X1JRtJxXAQnRwCLcBGAs/s1600/NPPTTLnb.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Total nonfarm private payroll employment 04/2002 to 07/2017" border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="1168" height="153" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pd-_mdjEqvk/WYsPqN1p1FI/AAAAAAAAAvI/A68sLaHe8x8BozXACNn-X1JRtJxXAQnRwCLcBGAs/s400/NPPTTLnb.png" title="" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
What was the question we collectively were asking ourselves? Perhaps, "Hey, what would happen if -- before really fully recovering -- we stopped pushing the economy back towards health as soon as we pulled it out of actively crashing?"<br />
<br />
If we aim a car up a very slight incline and get going pretty fast and don't hit the brakes, it'll keep going at a fairly steady pace for a while even after the driver's foot leaves the accelerator. Not forever. But for a while.<br />
<br />
Realistically, the foot isn't all the way off the pedal. It's more like we've cut back on the gas after quickly getting up to speed on the on-ramp. <br />
<br />
We're way below speed limit though. Was that the plan? Why did that seem like a good idea?State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-14814557947281702272017-07-25T09:51:00.001-04:002017-07-25T09:51:36.248-04:00How Necessities Have Eaten America's Personal Discretionary Spending Capacity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RiihTvPEqq4/WXdLkTZQJ-I/AAAAAAAAAuk/sMQzT1_Kj0kSskhO16MwcP0nPkbTf-VZwCLcBGAs/s1600/Rent%252520is%252520too%252520damn%252520high_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The Rent Is Too Damn High" border="0" data-original-height="407" data-original-width="600" height="217" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RiihTvPEqq4/WXdLkTZQJ-I/AAAAAAAAAuk/sMQzT1_Kj0kSskhO16MwcP0nPkbTf-VZwCLcBGAs/s320/Rent%252520is%252520too%252520damn%252520high_0.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A Business Insider article tells us "<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/america-us-consumption-habits-since-1940s-2017-7" target="_blank">How America's spending habits have changed since 1941</a>".</div>
<br />Spending "habits"? How about how costs have changed?<br />
<br />Seriously, who really believes that Americans want to allot such large portions of our income to housing -- whether rent or mortgage -- and transportation? Let's not forget about debt service, largely for housing and for investing in education to get jobs. And how many wouldn't want to be able to spend more on clothing, food & dining, and personal care?<br />
<br />New headline: how necessities have eaten America's personal discretionary spending capacity.State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-73861089337142987092017-06-08T15:29:00.001-04:002017-06-08T15:29:18.483-04:00There Is No Fuzz On that"There is no fuzz on that."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7E1K_ygOP6s/WTmlQ1OZ3jI/AAAAAAAAAuE/-Zr_o_cvDAghyGNedpqQJoBPXBgEQTSggCLcB/s1600/ComeyRussia.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="James Comey former FBI director: The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. It was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community and the members of this committee have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get. It is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. This is about America, not about a particular party." border="0" data-original-height="1450" data-original-width="1600" height="290" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7E1K_ygOP6s/WTmlQ1OZ3jI/AAAAAAAAAuE/-Zr_o_cvDAghyGNedpqQJoBPXBgEQTSggCLcB/s320/ComeyRussia.png" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-70792062725137498932017-03-09T10:31:00.000-05:002017-03-09T10:34:28.531-05:00If that's not conservative enough, what is?If that's not conservative enough, what is?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k_EdYJcU0Jo/WMF1IaenSRI/AAAAAAAAAtg/0liWCaMcUcI8MbvcC0KRjQ7fzNajghdowCLcB/s1600/ConservativeEnough.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="I've yet to read a single positive analysis of the House's Obamacare bill. Try going 2 a conservative source? Open up your reading habits 2 include those w/ whom u would naturally dismiss. I'm the editor of the National Review Online." border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k_EdYJcU0Jo/WMF1IaenSRI/AAAAAAAAAtg/0liWCaMcUcI8MbvcC0KRjQ7fzNajghdowCLcB/s400/ConservativeEnough.png" title="" width="368" /></a></div>
<br />State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-81127568323414644592017-02-20T15:30:00.000-05:002017-02-20T15:45:18.806-05:00What Drove the 2016 Election ResultsAlready, this is too easy to forget.<br />
<br />
We've <a href="https://thoughtstate.blogspot.com/2016/12/digging-into-state-story-in-rust-belt.html" target="_blank">covered</a> that Republican turnout was actually low. Not by much, but slightly below trend. Meanwhile Democratic turnout -- although not high enough to win the crucial red states -- was fairly good nationwide, if down somewhat from the previous peak. It just wasn't quite good enough in a few keys states. Why? Was there some winning over of voters on a policy issue? No, most folks who voted stuck to their usual party. So how did it happen? Largely, the voter data shows it hinged upon that just barely enough-to-swing-it previously Democratic-leaning voters didn't vote in 2016. While voter data alone can't tell us exactly what drove that swing, it shows that the question of the election was what kept just the critical number of voters in the key states from showing up.<br />
<br />
Aside from rather successful Republican voter suppression efforts with voter ID laws, Matthew Yglesias performed a solid analysis of how the story rolled. In short, <a href="http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/25/14037576/trump-won-because-of-emails" target="_blank">it </a><i><a href="http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/25/14037576/trump-won-because-of-emails" target="_blank">was</a></i><a href="http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/25/14037576/trump-won-because-of-emails" target="_blank"> the emails</a>. As Yglesias puts it, "Indeed, research from Gallup indicates that emails dominated what voters heard about Clinton all throughout the campaign."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7690049/emails.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7690049/emails.png" width="195" /></a></div>
<br />
That's it. That's ultimately the issue on which the 45th Presidency turned. The choice of which email server to use. Not jobs. Not healthcare. Not taxes. Not immigration. It's the emails.<br />
<br />
Yes, arguably, the Democrat's candidate might have been able to win despite the email issue had she been more charismatic, better able to inspire even more people to look at her carefully developed set of sensible policy approaches. That it was the emails does not defend the performance of the candidate who merely won the popular vote. While the campaign platform may have been solid and the campaign pitched those policies enough to earn a sizeable majority of the popular vote nationwide, the 2016 Clinton campaign failed to make it about all those thoroughly thought-out policies <i>in enough states</i>. Crucially, she failed to make it not be about the emails in key swing states.<br />
<br />
But any "might have" doesn't change what it <i>was</i> about. Where the votes counted, it was about the emails. If there was anything the 2016 election can be said to be about: the overriding mandate from the electorate was, "do not use a private email server as a public servant".<br />
<br />
Let's not forget that. No matter how tempting it might be to forget.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, if there's a lesson for future campaigns, it would seem to be this: pick a candidate far too charismatic to have their message drowned out by some flap about what server they used for their email.State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-46770673230416435352017-02-08T07:00:00.000-05:002017-02-08T07:00:57.822-05:00Republican Senators Terrified of 1986 LetterThe letter that Republican Senators of the 115th Congress couldn't stand to hear read by Senator Warren follows. It happens to be a letter that Republicans of 30 years ago could stomach and found compelling. But in 2017, they can't stand to hear it.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1jpTbHmfJxA/WJsHGZkDkhI/AAAAAAAAAtI/HRzjhTZhzjcf-MfhVV8QUCvbmMbXdJ69QCLcB/s1600/C4HUKr1WAAAp3CO.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1jpTbHmfJxA/WJsHGZkDkhI/AAAAAAAAAtI/HRzjhTZhzjcf-MfhVV8QUCvbmMbXdJ69QCLcB/s400/C4HUKr1WAAAp3CO.jpg" width="341" /></a></div>
<br />State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-80018043050196552062017-02-07T11:32:00.000-05:002017-02-07T11:32:50.798-05:00The Conspiracy Theorist In Chief<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-svtlam-m478/WJnvZg1Hr0I/AAAAAAAAAsY/-k_zdmd3eS8NdY86pmal-znLgY40-NjWgCLcB/s1600/TheodoreRooseveltPresidentialCrit.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-svtlam-m478/WJnvZg1Hr0I/AAAAAAAAAsY/-k_zdmd3eS8NdY86pmal-znLgY40-NjWgCLcB/s320/TheodoreRooseveltPresidentialCrit.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/06/trumps-suggestion-that-the-media-is-ignoring-terrorist-attacks-has-a-familiar-source-infowars" target="_blank">Washington Post reports</a> that the 45th President appears to be getting many of his ideas in what's happening in the world from the InfoWars conspiracy theory site. Or rather, it should perhaps be said that they've joined others in noting this state of affairs, including <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/26/media/infowars-alex-jones-donald-trump/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>, <a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/12/06/504590375/radio-conspiracy-theorist-claims-ear-of-trump-pushes-pizzagate-fictions" target="_blank">NPR</a>, and <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trump-and-the-amazing-alex-jones" target="_blank">The New Yorker</a>.<br />
<br />
That crazy uncle or grandpa who rattles off conspiracy theories and makes family gatherings uncomfortable? There appears to be one sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.<br />
<br />
So much has already been horribly bungled by the Conspiracy Theorist In Chief. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://twitter.com/StateOfThought/status/827144787941814272" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="https://twitter.com/StateOfThought/status/827144787941814272" border="0" height="158" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nX1FZllfbH4/WJnz60y0uII/AAAAAAAAAss/_1aSotWK2dUnBevfwtj1J8BkC_z2b9k1gCLcB/s320/TrumpGrossIncompetence.png" width="320" /></a></div>
It is not too soon to consider impeachment. Enough time has passed. A <a href="http://time.com/4658633/impeach-donald-trump-congress/" target="_blank">serious case has been made</a> based on the foreign-emoluments clause. A serious case can be made based on gross incompetence. And a serious case can be made based on profoundly questionable mental health and inadequate reasoning capacity.<br /><br />It is, as Theodore Roosevelt said of then-President Wilson, "even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else."<br />
<br />
And the truth is that it's time for Congress to begin impeachment hearings regarding the 45th President.State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-9248098000082629082017-01-29T20:57:00.000-05:002017-01-29T21:00:01.149-05:00Reagan On Religious Discrimination"We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism, and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils. We have no place for haters in America -- none, whatsoever."<br />
<br />
-- <a href="https://www.reaganlibrary.archives.gov/archives/speeches/1984/102684a.htm" target="_blank">President Ronald Reagan</a><br />
<br />
<br />State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-11265220224189275522017-01-28T07:22:00.000-05:002017-01-28T07:22:57.082-05:00Week One for the 45th<div>
One of the most important duties of any head of state obviously would be serving as the nation's chief diplomat.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If one were trying to go down in history as our worst President ever, it would be very challenging to get a faster start at it than by pissing off two of our three largest export markets before even making it through the first week on the job.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As individual countries go, our 2nd and 3rd largest export markets are Mexico and China. Together, they buy almost a quarter of our total exports. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thanks to our current President's "diplomacy", our 3rd largest export market has found it necessary to move their nuclear missiles within striking distance of us ... ya' know, just in case. And the citizens of our 2nd largest export market have begun a large-ish boycott of American companies.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So it's been a stellar week for America, right?</div>
State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-40671257496200210012017-01-27T09:27:00.001-05:002017-01-27T09:35:31.667-05:00A Reasonable Degree of Confidence<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NXDiUG7hKhQ/WItNjZI-QQI/AAAAAAAAAr4/VB20Ek8JtZQacDCURcX9NsXJxKFs8ZGvwCLcB/s1600/WiseFools.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Bertrand Russel said that "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people are so full of doubts." Sure. But that doesn't mean the wiser people can't be confident the fools are fools ... and wrong." border="0" height="300" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NXDiUG7hKhQ/WItNjZI-QQI/AAAAAAAAAr4/VB20Ek8JtZQacDCURcX9NsXJxKFs8ZGvwCLcB/s320/WiseFools.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
When we say that tariffs are a bad idea, it isn't for lack of real world experience. We've seen what happens with tariffs. There may not be clear certainty on what exactly would be the ideal economics policy mix for any point of time. That doesn't mean there's any lack of clarity that adopting tariffs would be the path of fools and/or fanatics. We know enough about economics to recognize the gaps in our knowledge; but also to know what's reasonably certain. And it is reasonably certain that proposing tariffs betrays an entirely simplistic failure to understand much about economics, one might call it having a grade-school understanding of economics. Not even up to the level of Econ 101, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-11-24/most-of-what-you-learned-in-econ-101-is-wrong" target="_blank">where a whole different set of simplistic misunderstandings thrive</a>.<br />
<br />
When climate scientists say that anthropogenic climate change is a thing. A real thing. In the really, real world. That it's happening. Do they have doubts? Sort of. They clearly have doubts about exactly where on the range of projections the actual course of temperatures will plot in future graphs of the past. But they have a high degree of certainty that it can reasonably be expected to be within a certain range. They understand the gaps in their knowledge, the variables that could cause various differences within the projected ranges. But they also know enough to know that the people who reject the whole set of ranges just don't know what they're talking about. To wit, that they're fools.<br />
<br />
When those with experience like Madeleine Albright say that <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MadeleineKAlbright/posts/1196791023775885" target="_blank">being anti-immigrant isn't consistent with the best interest of that nation</a>, it's with an understanding of the challenges involved. But it's also from knowing that those who would coarsely implement a blanket closing of the door from an entire country don't have a good grasp of the known repercussions. Immigration experts may be all too aware of the gaps in their capacity to achieve perfection with immigration policies and screening methods, but they're also aware that simplistically just barring the door to all comers would -- quite clearly -- be far worse than accepting the imperfections of our best available procedures that keep the door open.<br />
<br />
There's profound difference between being uncertain as to what's perfect and being less than certain as to what's clearly wrong. Wiser people are full of doubts as to what's perfect. But wiser people tend to be quite certain that the fools' plans are at least worse and often flat out entirely wrong. There's another term for having "alternative facts"; it's called being wrong (or outright lying, in the case of those who know better). <br />
<br />
We need to stop letting that which is clearly wrong go as if it were merely a difference of opinion rather than a flat out failure to have sufficient grasp of the subject. <br />
<br />
Even with recognition of what we do not know, we can be fairly certain of that.State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-62697651530772614212016-12-03T00:09:00.001-05:002016-12-03T00:21:01.486-05:00Digging into the State Story in the Rust BeltWe've already seen that on the national level, the story of the 2016 Presidential election was simply that <a href="https://thoughtstate.blogspot.com/2016/11/broad-stroke-story-of-election-national_28.html">the rough trend continued</a>, with turnout approaching the norm.<br />
<br />
As more analysis on the state specific level comes in, particularly with regard to the states that defied conventional wisdom, we can now get a more data-backed analysis of what happened there:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>"4. The real story—the one the pundits missed—is that voters who fled the Democrats in the Rust Belt 5 were twice as likely either to vote for a third party or to stay at home than to embrace Trump."</b></div>
<br />
-- from <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/the_myth_of_the_rust_belt_revolt.html" target="_blank">The Myth of the Rust Belt Revolt</a><br />
<br />
The supposed flight of working class voters to Trump just didn't fit, as some had already guessed just from looking at the overview, particularly in income bracket totals. Instead, it was that people who'd previously shown a leaning towards Democrat decided for whatever reason that they weren't going to vote for a front-runner this year.<br />
<br />
And since this change wasn't well reflected in the general trend of polls leading up, we can figure a good bit of it was a last minute change. Exit polls don't tell us much about the specific reasons why there, so it's hard to get more than speculation on the full details spurring such a turn.<br />
<br />
Perhaps that last minute flurry of attacks on the Democratic candidate among "fake news" outfits?<br />
<br />
And just how much of it was because of Comey's unconventionally timed interference?State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-76791203846205955762016-11-29T09:30:00.001-05:002016-11-29T09:30:32.953-05:00Taxes Are Pro Growth<div data-contents="true">
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="99a1j-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="99a1j-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="99a1j-0-0"><span data-text="true">Will we ever get people to stop pretending lower and lower taxes are somehow more and more "pro growth"?</span></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="bg3fh-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bg3fh-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="bg3fh-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="cva14-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="cva14-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="cva14-0-0"><span data-text="true">Infrastructure spending is pro growth.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="3faat-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3faat-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="3faat-0-0"><span data-text="true">R&D spending is pro growth.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="3mb7g-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3mb7g-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="3mb7g-0-0"><span data-text="true">Educating the labor pool is pro growth.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="cbkeb-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="cbkeb-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="cbkeb-0-0"><span data-text="true">Setting safety standards is pro growth.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="bd18f-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bd18f-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="bd18f-0-0"><span data-text="true">Grants to startups are pro growth.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="apm69-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="apm69-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="apm69-0-0"><span data-text="true">Safety nets mitigating risks are pro growth.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="bfa1o-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bfa1o-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="bfa1o-0-0"><span data-text="true">Redistribution so all can spend is pro growth.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="3iqvp-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3iqvp-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="3iqvp-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="7vmsl-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7vmsl-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="7vmsl-0-0"><span data-text="true">All of these things tend to come from taxes. Maintaining at least moderate taxes is pro growth. Increasing taxes on those of us with more tends to be pro growth.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="6dgja-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="6dgja-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="6dgja-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div data-block="true" data-editor="4n0mc" data-offset-key="dtkci-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="dtkci-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="dtkci-0-0"><span data-text="true">Lowering taxes is anti-growth, unless it's strictly done only for those who already lack a surplus.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br />State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-55334998210065157512016-11-28T10:28:00.001-05:002016-11-28T10:53:08.822-05:00Broad Stroke Story of The Election: National Versus State<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-arF9EeoIVAs/WDw0M7PmI7I/AAAAAAAAAq4/7nYyf_u89p0jtsCv3PhSQ60V1GHjrXnGACLcB/s1600/VotingPerCapita.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-arF9EeoIVAs/WDw0M7PmI7I/AAAAAAAAAq4/7nYyf_u89p0jtsCv3PhSQ60V1GHjrXnGACLcB/s320/VotingPerCapita.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In broad strokes, the national-level story of the United States 2016 Presidential election could be described as that <i>the rough trend continued</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 262px;">
<colgroup><col span="3" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2560; mso-width-source: userset; width: 53pt;" width="70"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px; width: 48pt;" width="64"></td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px; width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">D/VAP</span></b></td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px; width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">R/VAP</span></b></td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px; width: 53pt;" width="70"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Avg/VAP</span></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">1996</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2409</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.1992</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2200</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2000</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2431</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2405</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2418</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2004</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2689</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2826</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2757</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2008</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.3022</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2607</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2815</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2012</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2802</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2590</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2696</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2016</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2575</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2487</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2531</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
</div>
<br />
There was a swing up between the mid 90s and the mid 00s. The Democratic and Republican percentages of the voting age population (VAP) both increased in 2000 and 2004, with a much bigger Republican increase in 2000.<br />
<br />
Then there was a transition in 2008. That year, the Democrats had a much bigger increase equivalent to the Republican jump of 2000. Meanwhile, the Republican turnout began sliding down.<br />
<br />
And now we're in a swing down in the 10s. The Democratic and Republican percentages of the voting age population both decreased in 2012 and 2016.<br />
<br />
Where will we go from here? For both parties, the percentage of the VAP in 2016 was still up from what either party saw in 1996 and 2000. Considering the past two decades on average, we can't really say there was low turnout in 2016; just not quite as high as the peaks. Both candidates this year got a higher percentage of the potential vote -- more support -- than even the winning candidates from 16 and 20 years ago. We'd have to go back to 1984 to find a higher percentage of the VAP turning up for the two major parties; and that was the only higher year between 1980 and 2000. Based on the trend of the last 10 elections, we're likely only approaching the valley and barring some particular phenomenon drawing more people out to vote we'll likely see yet another decline in overall turnout next Presidential election.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ofmCYV8TRNs/WDxBYtw2MTI/AAAAAAAAArU/WMscAZGXAC4xhk39Wfv18RxoIcfq_KJfACLcB/s1600/VoterTurnout1980To2016.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ofmCYV8TRNs/WDxBYtw2MTI/AAAAAAAAArU/WMscAZGXAC4xhk39Wfv18RxoIcfq_KJfACLcB/s320/VoterTurnout1980To2016.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
If there's one thing we can say from the overall national trend, it's that the narrative of unenthused voters doesn't really fit. We've heard claims that voters were particularly disinterested in these candidates. Yet what drop there was this year was only in keeping with the direction of the past few elections. The turnout / VAP in 2016 remained over the average for the last 10 elections.<br />
<br />
There also quite clearly was no national surge whatsoever toward the Republican party. On the contrary, the Republican specific turnout was yet again down slightly, just like in the previous election. In fact, this year's Republican turnout brought it low enough at 24.87% to be below the 25.47% average Republican turnout for the last 10 elections.<br />
<br />
Democratic turnout also was only down this year by about the same degree it was down the previous Presidential election. And that was only returning it towards the rough trend, smoothing out from previous big gains. The 2016 Democratic turnout of 25.75% remained slightly above the 24.92% they've seen for the last 10 elections.<br />
<br />
By and large, the nation continued a return towards trend. The Republican party dipped slightly below their average; and the Democratic party remaining slightly above. There may have been changes in the character of each party's support, such as the <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/">widely reported</a> gains among the less educated for Republicans and among the more educated for Democrats. But these qualitative fluctuations did not budge the totals from the previous quantitative heading nationally.<br />
<br />
If there's a major story specific to this 2016 Presidential election that differs from the typical trend of the previous years, it would have to be at the state-by-state level. It isn't just that a few states decided the election in the electoral college; it's also that what happened in those particular states and the states that went the other way from them would together have to be the entire story of how this election might differ from the norm in voting.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">* Popular vote totals used for the above analysis were derived from </span><a href="http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections</span></a><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> as of 11/28/2016.</span>State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-33313359711251826912016-11-28T10:28:00.000-05:002016-11-28T10:32:37.107-05:00Broad Stroke Story of The Election: National Versus State<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-arF9EeoIVAs/WDw0M7PmI7I/AAAAAAAAAq4/7nYyf_u89p0jtsCv3PhSQ60V1GHjrXnGACLcB/s1600/VotingPerCapita.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-arF9EeoIVAs/WDw0M7PmI7I/AAAAAAAAAq4/7nYyf_u89p0jtsCv3PhSQ60V1GHjrXnGACLcB/s320/VotingPerCapita.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In broad strokes, the national-level story of the United States 2016 Presidential election could be described as that <i>the rough trend continued</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 262px;">
<colgroup><col span="3" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2560; mso-width-source: userset; width: 53pt;" width="70"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px; width: 48pt;" width="64"></td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px; width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">D/VAP</span></b></td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px; width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">R/VAP</span></b></td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px; width: 53pt;" width="70"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Avg/VAP</span></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">1996</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2409</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.1992</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2200</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2000</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2431</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2405</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2418</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2004</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2689</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2826</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2757</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2008</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.3022</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2607</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2815</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2012</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2802</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2590</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2696</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td align="right" height="20" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); height: 15pt; margin: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2016</span></b></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2575</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2487</span></td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">0.2531</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
</div>
<br />
There was a swing up between the mid 90s and the mid 00s. The Democratic and Republican percentages of the voting age population (VAP) both increased in 2000 and 2004, with a much bigger Republican increase in 2000.<br />
<br />
Then there was a transition in 2008. That year, the Democrats had a much bigger increase equivalent to the Republican jump of 2000. Meanwhile, the Republican turnout began sliding down.<br />
<br />
And now we're in a swing down in the 10s. The Democratic and Republican percentages of the voting age population both decreased in 2012 and 2016.<br />
<br />
Where will we go from here? For both parties, the percentage of the VAP in 2016 was still up from what either party saw in 1996 and 2000. Considering the past two decades on average, we can't really say there was low turnout in 2016; just not quite as high as the peaks. Both candidates this year got a higher percentage of the potential vote -- more support -- than even the winning candidates from 16 and 20 years ago. We'd have to go back to 1984 to find a higher percentage of the VAP turning up for the two major parties; and that was the only higher year between 1980 and 2000. Based on the trend of the last 10 elections, we're likely approaching the valley if not having bottomed out for the current downswing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ofmCYV8TRNs/WDxBYtw2MTI/AAAAAAAAArU/WMscAZGXAC4xhk39Wfv18RxoIcfq_KJfACLcB/s1600/VoterTurnout1980To2016.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ofmCYV8TRNs/WDxBYtw2MTI/AAAAAAAAArU/WMscAZGXAC4xhk39Wfv18RxoIcfq_KJfACLcB/s320/VoterTurnout1980To2016.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
If there's one thing we can say from the overall national trend, it's that the narrative of unenthused voters doesn't really fit. We've heard claims that voters were particularly disinterested in these candidates. Yet what drop there was this year was only in keeping with the direction of the past few elections. The turnout / VAP in 2016 remained over the average for the last 10 elections.<br />
<br />
There also quite clearly was no national surge whatsoever toward the Republican party. On the contrary, the Republican specific turnout was yet again down slightly, just like in the previous election. In fact, this year's Republican turnout brought it low enough at 24.87% to be below the 25.47% average Republican turnout for the last 10 elections.<br />
<br />
Democratic turnout also was only down this year by about the same degree it was down the previous Presidential election. And that was only returning it towards the rough trend, smoothing out from previous big gains. The 2016 Democratic turnout of 25.75% remained slightly above the 24.92% they've seen for the last 10 elections.<br />
<br />
By and large, the nation continued a return towards trend with the Republican party dipping slightly below their average and the Democratic party remaining slightly above. There may have been changes in the character of each party's support, such as the <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/">widely reported</a> gains among the less educated for Republicans and among the more educated for Democrats. But these qualitative fluctuations did not budge the totals from the previous quantitative heading nationally.<br />
<br />
If there's a major story specific to this 2016 Presidential election that differs from the typical trend of the previous years, it would have to be at the state-by-state level. It isn't just that a few states decided the election in the electoral college; it's also that what happened in those particular states and the states that went the other way from them would together have to be the entire story of how this election might differ from the norm in voting.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">* Popular vote totals used for the above analysis were derived from </span><a href="http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections</span></a><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> as of 11/28/2016.</span>State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-63448604698082721272016-11-16T09:35:00.003-05:002016-11-16T09:35:55.895-05:00Eichenwald on How<div class="uiScaledImageContainer _6m5 fbStoryAttachmentImage" style="height: 249px; width: 476px;">
<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044"><img alt="http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044" class="scaledImageFitWidth img" height="208" src="https://external.fbed1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDjMh6DxSxmMa67&w=476&h=249&url=http%3A%2F%2Fs.newsweek.com%2Fsites%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F11%2F14%2F1114democratmyths01.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&sx=0&sy=74&sw=3500&sh=1831" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="_3ekx _29_4">
<div class="_6m3 _--6">
<div class="mbs _6m6 _2cnj _5s6c">
<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044" rel="" target="_blank">In Opinion: The myths that cost Democrats the election</a></div>
<div class="_6m7 _3bt9">
Awash in false conspiracy theories, protest voters and angry non-voters put Trump in the White House.</div>
<div class="_59tj _2iau">
<div>
<div class="_6lz _6mb ellipsis">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">newsweek.com</span><span class="phs"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">|</span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">By Kurt Eichenwald</span><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-63429577199027985862016-11-13T10:18:00.001-05:002016-11-13T10:18:35.106-05:00Before And After<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SIex55D6OWE/WCiEGldy3NI/AAAAAAAAAqY/UQGwpkJbdFQyGnqr3mxkTIgGnYM_oiSKwCLcB/s1600/BeforeAndAfter.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SIex55D6OWE/WCiEGldy3NI/AAAAAAAAAqY/UQGwpkJbdFQyGnqr3mxkTIgGnYM_oiSKwCLcB/s400/BeforeAndAfter.png" width="348" /></a></div>
<br />State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-1386108848806116092016-11-08T09:16:00.000-05:002016-11-08T09:17:47.506-05:00November ElectionsIn November of 1932, eighty-four years and two days before the 2016 American election, the majority of the German people did not do anything quite like the way hindsight and simplification might make it look. Combined, just slightly more of the German electorate voted for the next two parties than voted for the Nazis. In total, a hair over twice as many people voted for the total of all other parties than voted for the NSDAP (that is, the Nazis). However, this doesn't make it just a matter of what the mere 1/3 who voted for Hitler's party chose.<br />
<br />
By and large, what the German people did was fail to unite against the Nazis.<br />
<br />
But their grave error wasn't one of failing to vote for a party and its leader who we all now know would commit all the horrors of the Holocaust. Their disgrace came not from the things they didn't know then but from failing to recognize all the relatively little bad that was quite clear at the time. Back then, nobody knew it would mean the atrocity of slaughtering millions and a permanent national disgrace to fail to unite behind the most viable alternative.<br />
<br />
They knew the Nazi leader winked at the violence of his party and maybe even encouraged it.<br />
<br />
They knew he attacked his nation's negotiated treaties.<br />
<br />
They knew his party embraced an ideology favoring one particular race and xenophobic of others.<br />
<br />
They knew he <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anti-semitism-is-no-longer-an-undertone-of-trumps-campaign-its-the-melody/2016/11/07/b1ad6e22-a50a-11e6-8042-f4d111c862d1_story.html" target="_blank">used anti-Semitism in his campaign</a>.<br />
<br />
They knew his party opposed women being in the workplace, pushing that they stay home producing children.<br />
<br />
They knew he'd botched his preferred line of work and essentially gone bankrupt.<br />
<br />
They knew about his failed coup.<br />
<br />
They saw all his various campaign <a href="http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/24/13387170/trump-insults-twitter" target="_blank">attacks on people and groups</a>.<br />
<br />
They had a pretty good idea he was more than a bit unhinged.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N58d4XZ_vkc/WCHamvzqIBI/AAAAAAAAAp8/TgIUbEns2sMVqeJ4mt9wEfVY--9Dwv43QCLcB/s1600/OneThird.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="31" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N58d4XZ_vkc/WCHamvzqIBI/AAAAAAAAAp8/TgIUbEns2sMVqeJ4mt9wEfVY--9Dwv43QCLcB/s200/OneThird.png" style="cursor: move;" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Trump's RCP Average Favorability as of 11/8/2016: 37.5%</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N58d4XZ_vkc/WCHamvzqIBI/AAAAAAAAAp8/TgIUbEns2sMVqeJ4mt9wEfVY--9Dwv43QCLcB/s1600/OneThird.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a>
And sure, <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html" target="_blank">it was only the worst 1/3 of them that embraced him despite all of that</a>.<br />
<br />
But the majority of the German people knew all of this and failed to consider it sufficiently crucial for them to unite to keep Hitler and his party out of power. They considered it more important that they not vote for a party other than their particular preference. Or that they punish a party they usually preferred but that hadn't made everything better fast enough.<br />
<br />
They saw a lot of warning signs. And they failed to stop it. And that's more than bad enough.<br />
<br />
It would have been more than bad enough even if the Hitler of 1932 hadn't eventually become the Hitler of the later 1930s through the mid 1940s. The Hitler of 1932 was not then the Hitler of later history. But what was known in 1932 should have been plenty to unite to stop the Nazis from ever attaining power.State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-56899440819602528452016-09-27T08:42:00.003-04:002016-09-27T08:42:51.493-04:00Bookish<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Maybe there's something we need to fix as a country when one of the candidates is being warned not to come off as too bookish.</div>
— Guy Endore-Kaiser (@GuyEndoreKaiser) <a href="https://twitter.com/GuyEndoreKaiser/status/780561401874001920">September 27, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-39198269398638674842016-09-06T12:19:00.001-04:002016-09-06T12:19:56.175-04:00Blackford on Friedman<a href="http://www.rweconomics.com/BPA.htm" target="_blank">Blackford on Friedman</a> and the need to strenuously denounce pseudo-science,<br />
<br />
"This may seem to make sense to an engineer who wishes to learn the current state of the art of bridge building, or to an ideologue who wishes to provide a logical foundation for his or her most cherished delusions irrespective of the circular reasoning and false assumptions upon which that logic is based, but this is not science! If physical scientists had taken this approach to science throughout the course of history—relying on “folklore” and “the tenacity with which hypotheses are held” and on those who have been exposed to “the ‘right’ scientific atmosphere” as they ignored the realism of assumptions—we would still be living in a Ptolemaic universe cataloging the situations in which Aristotle’s assumptions do and do not work.<br />
<br />
"Friedman is quite wrong in his assertion that there is a “thin line . . . which distinguishes the ‘crackpot’ from the scientist.” That line is not thin. It is the clear, bright line that exists between those who accept arguments based on circular reasoning and false assumptions as meaningful and those who do not. This should be obvious, yet there are economists who hold tenured positions at prestigious universities and responsible positions in government agencies and international institutions who accept Friedman’s nonsense as gospel. ..."<br /><br />To wit, economics needs more effort invested in housecleaning, in pointing out those like Friedman's followers who like the emperor believe themselves attired in finery yet in reality wear no clothes.State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401303513147172759.post-58669483989419491562016-07-28T06:09:00.002-04:002016-07-28T06:09:54.512-04:00Red ImplicationsAnyone else suspecting that -- aside from the direction of the US Supreme Court for the next several decades -- the 2016 US Presidential election will also determine whether Ukraine gets annexed by Russia in 2017 or not?<br /><br />And who wants to bet Putin would stop there?State of Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367399699314075343noreply@blogger.com0