TRUMP! Today's news for November 9th

Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. What happened?

When you look at the Electoral College maps in 2012 versus yesterday, here are the states that jumped sides (with their Electoral College votes): Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (6), and possibly New Hampshire (4, but it is still very tight, with Trump leading by roughly 300 votes at 4:30 am EST). They all went to Trump.

For Iowa, I chalk that up to the Mike Pence factor. Vice presidential choices can be like a pawn move in chess. A good pawn move can be important in the overall game. Trump won Iowa (51-42%) almost like Indiana (57-37%), which is a similar nearby midwestern state. Trump's choice of Pence as his VP sent a strong midwestern signal, whereas Hillary Clinton's choice of Virginia Senator Tim Kaine only barely helped her in Virginia (49-45%), which was a blue state in 2012 too.

For Michigan (47.7%-47.2%) and Wisconsin (47-46%), those belong to Trump's anti-free trade rhetoric, which had strong appeal to rust belt states. They are looking for someone to blame for their failing manufacturing, and "21st century technology" isn't a big sell to blue collar types.

The rust belt factor also applies to Ohio (52-43%) and Pennsylvania (48-47%), along with Hillary's strong anti-coal message (which also hurt her in Virginia, but she managed to retain the win there).

The big steal for Trump was Florida (49-47%). There were two big factors there:

1. The race factor. In 2012, President Obama beat Mitt Romney 50-49%, but you have to remember Obama carried unprecedented levels of the black vote, which turned out in much larger numbers than usual. This year, Trump dipped into those percentages significantly.
2. The negativity (and awful candidates) of this race. In 2012, third party votes accounted for less than 1% of the overall votes, with Libertarian Gary Johnson pulling a scant 0.53% of the vote. This year, third parties pulled 3.2%. Before Libertarians pat themselves on the back, they need to consider there was much more "pox on both your houses" voting this year.

Regarding that last factor, that impacted other states too, including some of the others mentioned above (percentage vote for third parties in parentheses): Michigan (5.1%), Wisconsin (5.2%), and Pennsylvania (3.5%). Considering the victory margin was significantly less than the third party vote in those states, this exceptional showing by third parties shows a strong leak in the major party's votes. If the next election is as ugly as this one, don't be surprised if this trend continues.

On a side note, the Clinton concession speech last night was given by John Podesta, the source of all the Wikileaks emails. Irony is a cruel mistress.

Other fallout from the Trump election:

Mirror:

French ambassador to the US says the "world is collapsing" 

as Donald Trump looks set to become President

The current French ambassador to the United States has tweeted that the "world is collapsing before our eyes" as Donald Trump looks set to become US President.

Gerard Araud, who is the serving ambassador, tweeting his remarks as forecasters predict the Republican billionaire will defeat Hillary Clinton.

The 63-year-old said: "After Brexit and this election, everything is now possible. A world is collapsing before our eyes. Dizziness."

Electing Trump is almost worth the image of the French ambassador swooning. Priceless.

Seriously, the world's elites, of which Hillary Clinton was their best American candidate, have had their chance. After the economic collapse of 2008, they opted to bail out the world banking system, which did little for anyone's economy. Since 9/11, they have had us in a neverending war against Islam, which has only created more terrorism and Islamic migrants from the Middle East and Asia, which the elites have also encouraged.

Trump wasn't the best choice, and he wasn't even a good choice, but he was preferable to the status quo.

Deal with it, France.

Speaking of drama queens...

BT:

Calexit: Now Californians want independence after America elected Donald Trump

Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States has been compared to Brexit many times – but that comparison could get a little bit more real if disgruntled Californians have anything to do with it.

Following the news that Trump had defeated Hillary Clinton at the polls, voters in the left-leaning state of California were calling for Calexit...

For now, this is just a social media thing, and nothing organized. However, if the folks in California really want to secede, I promise as a good Georgia boy to support their efforts.

But Californians aren't the only drama queens about this:

The Hill:

Celebs who said they’d leave country if Trump won

Dozens of celebrities vowed to leave the country if Donald Trump won the White House, saying they’d flee to everywhere from Canada to Jupiter.

The threat is a common one after any election outcome: Canada’s immigration website crashed from heavy traffic as it looked increasingly likely that Trump would win.

But after the real estate mogul clinched the presidency in a stunning victory early Wednesday morning, some of those stars will face questions about making good on their promise.

To be honest, I would not want to see Samuel L. Jackson or Jon Stewart leave. But they are the only ones on the list.

The rest is a "who's who" of idiotic Leftist drama queens: Lena Dunham, Cher, Miley Cyrus, Barbara Streisand, Amy Schumer, Whoopi Goldberg, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (although Ginsburg later retracted her comments).

But the one who I would literally want to force him to leave is Al Sharpton. If he left, that alone could make this country a better place. Heck, I would even vote for Trump in the next election, just to keep Sharpton out. (Ok, maybe that is a slight exaggeration, but not by much.)

I will leave the final word on this presidential election to my old buddy Rodak:

Rodak Riffs:

Reflections: Trump Wins the Presidency

And finally: Thanks a lot, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Free market versus government control: The AI solution

@1EMcGon1 @haydentiff @Dharmocracy when we start judging programs by results instead of intentions

— do I care? (@BKeachDay) November 8, 2016

The Twitter exchange above brought to mind the ages old question of free market versus government control. Or you can call it freedom versus socialism. Whatever you call it, both sides have points to be made.

Free market control is results oriented, because free markets demand results. On the other hand, government control only requires intentions to be good, as no government program is ever held fully accountable for results. Goals where results cannot be easily (or profitably) obtained, but may still need to be done, are hard sells in a free market.

The U.S. seems to be involved in a perpetual political argument about this topic. So which is right?

First, there is NO good form of government. All forms of government in all of human history have one inherent flaw: They are run by one or more humans, who are flawed by nature. Even if you have a "better than average" leader(s), eventually they die or retire, and will inevitably be replaced by someone who is "less than average". It doesn't matter if the government is a democracy (which is better known as "the tyranny of the majority", for a very good reason) or a dictatorship. Whether the government's flaws show up in genocide or Jim Crow laws, or even simply inefficient bureaucracy, they will inevitably appear.

On the other hand, total freedom, otherwise known as anarchy, isn't any better. Some libertarians like to promote anarchy as a solution, but consider aspects of the ultimate anarchy: Nature. Anarchy is wonderful, until a bear shows up. If you prefer a more human answer, replace "bear" with "Russia" or "China". Your typical anarchy cannot defend itself against an authoritarian government. Enjoy living under the brutal dictatorship which will inevitably consume your little anarchy. Nature abhors a vacuum, and anarchy is a vacuum of government.

Back to the original question, free market control or government control? As the Founding Fathers realized, limited government control is ideal, but also inevitable. While we cannot live without it, we also have to be ever vigilant against abuses of it by the humans running it.

Fear not, there is a perfect solution to this very human problem: Government by artificial intelligence (AI).

Before you say "Terminator", keep in mind that an AI is only as ethically good as it is programmed to be. If you can get the AI properly programmed (we come back to the old flawed humans conundrum again), it is theoretically possible to create a perfect government.

In summary, here is the recipe for a perfect government:

1. Limited in scope and authority.
2. Maintained by a well-programmed artificial intelligence.

To accomplish this, we will first need to bring back the 10th Amendment in full force. If anything, it should be provided greater priority than all of the other Constitutional amendments.

Finally, we need to improve artificial intelligence to the point where it is capable of oversight of a large number of people, and then we need to program it correctly. Skynet can be a good idea, if properly executed. By keeping the scope of any AI's authority limited, any potential damage can also be limited.

Patriots support Trump: Today's news for November 8th

Happy Election Day! Sadly, the long national nightmare is only beginning, with what promises to be a presidential election of one of the two worst candidates to ever be elected anywhere on Earth (and I am including Silvio Berlusconi in that list). 

Back to the headline...

Business Insider:

Trump says he was just endorsed by Tom Brady and Bill Belichick

I didn't say what KIND of Patriots, now did I?

Moving on to less silly news...

CNS News:

Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9,977,000

The United States lost 9,000 manufacturing jobs in October while gaining 19,000 jobs in government, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Government employment grew from 22,216,000 in September to 22,235,000 in October, according to BLS, while manufacturing jobs dropped from 12,267,000 to 12,258,000.

Bad news folks: This trend is not going away, regardless of how you vote today. While the number of government workers could stand to be reduced, the manufacturing jobs are going away for good.

Here is a prediction for you: Within the next 30 years, the only manufacturing jobs will be in third world countries, if they are anywhere. More likely, all manufacturing will be done by robots.

Back to the topic of the day...

Breitbart:

Polls Show African-American Vote for Donald Trump is Double Mitt Romney’s Vote

Donald Trump is on track to double Gov. Mitt Romney’s support among African-American voters, according to a series of state polls.

In 2012, African-Americans comprised a record 13 percent of all voters. President Barack Obama was reelected with 93 percent of the African-American vote, leaving Gov. Mitt Romney with only 6 percent of the African-American vote. Obama is now campaigning against Trump, and hoping to keep his share of the African-American vote below the 11 percent that George W. Bush won in 2004 during the housing bubble.

On Friday, a poll of 506 Pennsylvania voters by Harper Polling showed Trump has the support of 18.46 percent of African-Americans. That’s 12.5 points more than Romney’s share of the national vote in 2012, and if it proves true during the ballot, that 18.46 percent African-American support translates into 2 point shift towards Trump. The poll also said another 4.6 percent were undecided. 

While a reversion to normal voting patterns would be expected after the racial identity patterns of the Obama years, 18% support for Trump? Even if the error margin runs entirely against Trump, and he only gets about 14% of the black vote, that would still be huge (no Trump pun intended).

On the other hand, the number of black voters will likely drop now that they don't have a black man for whom to vote. But it does show that active black voters are beginning to see the Democrats for the power-hungry demagogues they are.

Now if they can only get over the silly political binary thinking which is common in America...

On the subject of silly thinking:

Mirror:

Judge orders chimp to be freed from zoo enclosure 

after ruling the animal has 'non-human rights'

A judge has ruled that a zoo chimpanzee is a "being" with "non- human rights " in a landmark animal welfare case.

Cecilia, in her 30s, has been kept alone in a concrete enclosure for years at the shabby Mendoza Zoo in Argentina after the death of two of her mates.

But after complaints from a Spanish visitor, sparking a two-year legal wrangle, Judge María Alejandra Mauricio ruled Cecilia be freed and transferred to a sanctuary in Brazil.

Judge Mauricio said non-human creatures possessed rights related to their "animal essence" .

She said: "We're not talking about the civil rights enshrined in the Civil Code, but instead the species' own rights to development, to life in their natural habitat."

While this is a good decision, it does present an intriguing philosophical question: How can animals have rights that humans don't have?

For example, how does this chimp manage to avoid paying taxes? And don't say the chimp didn't have an income. She was getting free boarding and food. In nearly any country, that counts as income.

So where is the human sanctuary where we can go to avoid taxes, but still live in our "natural habitat"? Picture a tax-free sports bar.

The Republican dilemma

Donald Trump presents a lot of problems for conservative Republicans, but National Review's Mario Loyola may have a solution for them, albeit an unorthodox one, in his editorial, "Trump and Reconciliation".

Here is the problem:

Even if you think Trump would be a disaster, a general-election position of Never Trump has significant downsides for a Republican member of Congress, not least of which is that it makes Hillary Clinton’s victory all the more inevitable, and the larger her margin of victory, the more harmful will be the effect on down-ballot races. This is not the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was willing to embrace conservative proposals in the service of a broad majority agenda. Leading lights such as the brilliant Ira Magaziner, Bill Clinton’s muse, have been replaced by the likes of Elizabeth Warren, angry enforcer of hard-left ideology.

With this increasingly leftward Democratic party, allowing Hillary to nominate the successor to Antonin Scalia would be one of the worst disasters in the Republican party’s history. It would give progressives a majority on the Court for the first time since 1986. Take a moment to think about the constitutional devastation wrought during the nearly 50 years of progressive dominance of the Supreme Court that began in 1937, when Franklin D. Roosevelt intimidated the Court into abdicating its most solemn responsibility, that of protecting the Constitution’s limits on government power. It was then that the original Constitution was overthrown and replaced with the progressive scheme of protectionism for politically organized special interests, which was the point of Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and of its conversion of the Commerce Clause into an unlimited source of government power.

On the other hand:

The other side of the argument, of course, is that Trump is himself a danger to the Constitution. One can hardly be blamed for worrying about this. Trump promises heavy government intervention on virtually every issue, and he doesn’t seem the least bit concerned with legal technicalities. He often strikes a decidedly authoritarian pose, and his supporters seem to love it. He threatens to change laws and interfere heavily in commerce, and he shows even less interest in the Constitution’s separation of powers than Obama has. Where the succession of power in American democracy has long presupposed magnanimity to one’s critics and opponents, Trump brags that he will go after his naysayers. He doesn’t wear a Fascist’s uniform, and his supporters aren’t organized in uniformed paramilitary cadres, but the nationalist, socialistic, state-heavy, strong-leader tendencies that led to Fascism and Nazism are clearly visible among supporters of both Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Solution:

Still, the best outcome of this election, from the point of view of a traditional conservative Republican, is for Trump and the GOP to have a landslide victory and then for Trump to resign immediately in favor of Vice President Mike Pence, who is both eminently qualified to be president and a real conservative.

That’s not going to happen, but something similar could — namely, impeachment. 

Republicans, especially Republicans of a truly conservative stripe, should support Trump, but keep that impeachment bullet handy. If Trump turns into the disaster many of us expect, nobody would blame the GOP for turning on their own president.

Janet Reno escapes: Today's news for November 7th

CNN:

Janet Reno, first female US attorney general, dies

Janet Reno, former US attorney general under President Bill Clinton, died Monday morning following a long battle with Parkinson's disease, her sister Maggy Hurchalla said. She was 78.

Reno, the nation's first-ever female attorney general, served in the Clinton White House from 1993 to 2001.

As part of the Clinton administration, Reno oversaw the high-profile convictions of numerous bombers including Ted Kaczynski, the domestic terrorist infamously known as the "Unabomber;" Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols for their roles in the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing; and Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman for the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.

Reno's time in office was also bookended with a pair of major controversies that gripped the US: the 1993 Waco, Texas, standoff -- which resulted in the death of over 80 members of the Branch Davidian sect -- and the 2000 armed raid that led to the capture of young Cuban immigrant Elian Gonzalez.

On the bright side for Reno, she got out before the election tomorrow. If only the rest of us were that lucky!

In related news...

Washington Post:

FBI director's letter to Congress after review of newly discovered Clinton emails

FBI Director James Comey wrote that investigators had worked "around the clock" to review all the emails found on a device used by former congressman Anthony Weiner that had been sent to or from Clinton and that "we have not changed our conclusions expressed in July."

In July, those conclusions about Hillary Clinton were:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

In other words, Clinton was given a pass for unspecified reasons.

Fortunately, we have Al Franken coming to the rescue...

RealClearPolitics:

Franken: "We Will Have Hearings" About "Rogue Elements" Inside The FBI

Sen. Al Franken called Sunday for an investigation into "rogue" elements within the FBI. FBI director James Comey has faced criticism from Democrats over his decision to announce that the investigation into Hillary Clinton is still going on.

Hopefully, Senator Franken can find the rogues who refuse to prosecute Clinton. Or is this one of those skits that ends with, "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!"

Speaking of bad jokes, let's talk about Clinton's ethics:

Fox News:

'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shanghai Expo

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “disregarded ethics guidelines” to raise more than $72 million for the U.S. Pavilion at the World’s Fair in Shanghai in 2010, taking money from big-name contributors who later “received favorable treatment” from her State Department and also contributed to her namesake foundation, according to a 2015 internal Clinton research document revealed Sunday by WikiLeaks.

The 10-page portion of a vetting document prepared by Clinton’s campaign to examine her vulnerabilities before seeking the Democratic nomination for president was attached to an email examining a candidate for campaign treasurer Jose Villarreal. The March 11, 2015, email was made public after Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account was hacked and the trove posted to WikiLeaks. 

...“When soliciting contributions, Clinton had little consideration for ethics, as the corporations who were featured in Shanghai also contributed to her foundation and received accolades from the State Department,” the document stated. 

"Little consideration for ethics" should be Hillary's epithet.

Among the other charges the vetting document highlighted: 

•  “Boeing contributed $2.25 million to the Shanghai Expo, while Clinton helped the company land a multi-billion [dollar] Russian deal”
•  “Procter & Gamble gave $3 million to the Shanghai & Expo [sic] & Millions to The Clinton Foundation; Was repaid with Corporate Excellence Award”
•  “Clinton solicited PepsiCo as one of the largest Shanghai Expo sponsors; PepsiCo committed same amount to Clinton Foundation projects”
•  “Alcoa, a Shanghai Expo contributor, pleaded guilty to foreign bribery charges facilitated by a major Clinton Foundation donor”
•  “Secretary Clinton was ‘Advocate-In-Chief’ for General Electric, which was one of the largest donors to the Shanghai Expo”

Is there ANYONE who hasn't donated money to Hillary Clinton?

Speaking of Hillary's "deals"...

Wikileaks:

Email: "Sanders criticism" 

In the email below, Christina Reynolds is Hillary's campaign Deputy Communications Director, and Robby Mook is her campaign manager (who also came up with her epithet above):

Fwd: Sanders criticism

From:re47@hillaryclinton.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-05-26 12:04
Subject: Fwd: Sanders criticism

This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some
leverage, would be good to flag this for him. I could send a signal via
Welch--or did you establish a direct line w him? 

Begin forwarded message:
*From:* Christina Reynolds <creynolds@hillaryclinton.com>
*Date:* May 26, 2015 at 9:22:07 AM EDT
*To:* Robby Mook <re47@hillaryclinton.com>, Kristina Schake <
kschake@hillaryclinton.com>, Jennifer Palmieri <
jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>, Tony Carrk <tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com>,
John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>, Oren Shur <oshur@hillaryclinton.com>,
Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>
*Subject:* *FW: Sanders criticism* 

Following up on our call on Friday, just wanted to give some updates and
flag that Bernie went after HRC and WJC on wealth (including using the word
“hustle.) 

I followed up with Brad. The only thing they’ve pushed is from the attached
docs—trying to get reporters to write that HRC and Bernie are actually in
the same place. They are happy for any suggestions, but were not planning
on making any big attacks around the announcement. 

We’re working on talking points for surrogates now and will get those
around. Unless others disagree, I don’t think we comment on the question
below.

Basically, Hillary Clinton had some kind of secret agreement with Bernie Sanders about what topics were off-limits. Anyone surprised? Possibly at Bernie Sanders, but not at Hillary. She's done more deals than Monty Hall.

For you youngsters who don't remember Monty Hall, here he is:

Weekly finale: Bobby Vinton

With another week under our belts, it is time for the weekly musical finale.

This week, I celebrate a man who was one of the great singers of the 20th century, even though some of his songs were a little sappy. The man is Bobby Vinton.

Possibly the best thing that ever happened to his career was the use of his song Blue Velvet in the movie of the same name by David Lynch:


The movie actually gave the song an unintended edge, at least in my memory, which actually makes it work better. Otherwise, it is just kind of a sappy song, even if it is performed well.

Here is another blast from the past. An appearance by Bobby Vinton on "American Bandstand" from 1964 (yes, that is Dick Clark at the beginning) singing Mr. Lonely:


That is all for me. Try not to be too lonely this weekend without me, because I will be back Monday.

Ranked-choice voting

In this election, there is a ballot initiative in maine which would create a "ranked-choice voting" (RCV) system there. This might be a better way of voting.

Here is a description of how it would work (from NewBostonPost):

If one candidate wins a majority of first-place votes, she is declared the winner. However, if no one candidate gets a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated, and his votes are redistributed to the other candidates based on who those voters chose as their second choice. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of votes and is declared the winner.

This is clearly a more friendly system for third party candidates.

Let's consider the possibilities from an unusually tight state, Utah. Based on the average of the latest polls from RealClearPolitics, here is roughly how the presidential candidates are expected to finish:

Trump - 37.8%
Clinton - 26.5%
McMullin - 25.8%
Johnson - 3.5%
Stein - 1.3%
Other - 5.1%  

Let's say the "other" candidates get removed from the "first" choice, and apportioned equally between all the candidates as a second choice (with 0.1% removed as not having selected a second choice). That would make it:

Trump - 38.8%
Clinton - 27.5%
McMullin - 26.8%
Johnson - 4.5%
Stein - 2.3%

Next, Jill Stein gets removed. Since her voters likely second and third choices would be between Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson with another 0.1% "no choice", I will apportion them there, putting us at this result:

Trump - 38.8%
Clinton - 28.6%
McMullin - 26.8%
Johnson - 5.6% 

Next, Gary Johnson gets removed. His likely second, third, and fourth choices are likely to be concentrated between Donald Trump and Evan McMullin, putting the race at:

Trump - 41.6%
Clinton - 28.6%
McMullin - 29.6% 

Finally, this leaves Clinton as the next to be dropped. If her voters go the political binary route, they could put Trump in the White House if they pick Trump as their second/third/fourth/fifth choice. On the other hand, if they overwhelmingly chose McMullin with those secondary choices, they could deny the state to Trump.

The beauty of RCV is that it gets to the heart of what the voters really want, without allowing a bare plurality of voters to decide who wins. Maybe people won't agree on the first choice, especially in a packed field, but they might be able to find agreement somewhere else.

This represents the democratic ideal far better than our current "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner". Let's give the entire barnyard a vote by allowing second choices.