Answer before explanation: Because voter fraud is just about the most expensive, burdensome, unreliable and risky way imaginable to rig elections.
The "r" in "voter fraud" is an important letter.
VoteR fraud would be someone pretending to be someone else when voting, or pretending to be legally entitled to vote when he or she is not, or contriving to vote multiple times or in multiple jurisdictions. That is, it would be fraud by someone who is, or is pretending to be, a voter.
If I was a party or campaign operative who wanted to affect the outcome of an election, I'd dismiss voter fraud schemes out of hand. They would require rounding up a whole bunch of people, trusting those people to cast the votes I wanted cast instead of just voting however they felt like voting, and risking each and every one of them getting caught and/or turning coat and outing me. And using "illegal aliens" (as if any such thing existed)? Risible. Their chief concern in life, other than making a living, is to not get caught making a living, so why would they do something dangerous and of little or no personal benefit to themselves like trying to vote?
Now, "vote" fraud, without the "r" on the end of the word "vote," is a different story altogether. It requires many orders of magnitude fewer co-conspirators: Polling place workers and/or vote counters and/or programmers of voting machines. My co-conspirators can find ways to change votes from votes against me to votes for me, or to add fake votes to the totals.
Yes, that happens. I've caught it happening before.
If Donald Trump was asserting vote fraud as a reason for Hillary Clinton getting more votes than him in November's election, it just might come somewhat close to getting into the neighborhood of being marginally believable. But that's not what he's asserting. He's asserting (and now saying he's going to "investigate" his fantasy of) voteR fraud -- the idea that there were "millions of people who voted illegally."
[Addendum, later in the day: I don't usually turn my blog posts into Garrison Center columns, but I do sometimes, and this was one of those times]
Showing posts with label Election 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2016. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Saturday, December 17, 2016
You Know, Maybe We're Kind of Dodging a Bullet Here
It's one of those things that we sort of know intellectually in general but that's really a cold blast of water in the face in each specific case:
I guaran-damn-tee that if we ever decide to trace the origins of the "dog ate my homework" excuse, we'll eventually find ourselves in Park Ridge, Illinois, listening to Maine Township High School East alumni and retired faculty dish on Hillary Rodham.
The former first lady and US Secretary of State never takes responsibility for anything negative.
When she and Bill were in the White House, each and every foul-up or ethical failing, major or minor, was the work of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" or Linda Tripp or gremlins in the West Wing stenography pool or whatever.
When she lost the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nomination race to upstart Barack Obama, it was because the media (especially MSNBC/Chris Matthews) weren't nice enough to her.
Now it's all the fault of James Comey and !THEM RUSSIANS! that she ran such a crappy 2016 presidential campaign that she got beat like a drum by an orange-haired pussy-grabbing welfare queen with a bad case of Tourette's.
So much so that right now she has the Democratic Party flirting with coup d'etat and the CIA and the sitting president toying with world war just to make sure she doesn't have to admit "yeah, I blew that one, big-time."
I'm just spit-balling here, but doesn't that attitude seem a teensy-weensy bit at odds with "I'm the cool, commanding leadership presence America needs to guide it through the next four to eight years of an uncertain future?"
Friday, December 16, 2016
CoupCoup Clock
* Electors meet in their respective state capitals on Monday, December 19, at various times, beginning with Vermont and perhaps Maryland at 10am Eastern (here's the list).
The final set of electors don't meet until 7pm in the Hawaii–Aleutian Time Zone (three guesses which state we're talking about there) -- midnight Eastern.
For obvious reasons it will be some time Tuesday before all elector votes have been cast and the totals are known. But we'll probably have a pretty good idea much earlier as to whether or not there's a coup attempt under way in the electoral college.
Tuesday, November 08, 2016
Election 2016: My Prediction vs. Actual Results
POST EXPLAINER, ADDED ~11am Eastern: This post will be updated through the day as the spirit moves. Some bloggers put updates at the top, so everything is reverse chronology. I'm one of those bloggers who puts updates at the bottom, so if you're coming back and trying to catch up, scroll down. And hey, comments are welcome. To the extent that there's KN@PPSTER "election coverage," it will all be found in this post unless something just over the top happens that absolutely requires a separate bit - TLK]
9am Eastern: Here's a screen shot of my state-by-state prediction for the 2016 US presidential election -- that Donald Trump will carry every state Mitt Romney carried in 2012, plus Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida (you can drum up your own map at RealClearPolitics):
9am Eastern: Here's a screen shot of my state-by-state prediction for the 2016 US presidential election -- that Donald Trump will carry every state Mitt Romney carried in 2012, plus Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida (you can drum up your own map at RealClearPolitics):
My friend Darcy Richardson's prediction is slightly different in that he has Trump losing North Carolina but carrying Wisconsin. I think those are our only differences, but I could be wrong.
We're probably both wrong on one state. As of the most recent polling, Iowa looks like it's going to go to Trump rather than to Clinton. But I'm not making any last-minute changes. Right or wrong, I made my prediction and we're going to see how right or wrong it was.
I'll update this post during the day and evening, assuming there's something worth updating it for. And at the bottom, where you can already see abbreviations for each state set up, I will update as I see them called for one candidate or the other (some of them possibly tomorrow if I crap out and go to bed before we hear results).
Update, 10:45am: A few days ago I made my predictions regarding third party performance over at Independent Political Report. Here they are:
Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party): 2.3% +/- 0.3%
Jill Stein (Green Party): 1.9% +/- 0.3%
Darrell Castle (Constitution Party): 0.5% +/- 0.2%
Evan McMullin ("Never Trump" Republican): 23% +/- 1% in Utah
I didn't try to predict how McMullin will do in the 10 other states where he's on the ballot. I'm guessing low single digits in all of them, but it's hard to tell.
Update, 12:45pm: Reuters is reporting that "Banks warn clients to brace for FX volatility after U.S. vote." The idea being that "the gap between buying and selling prices that determines the cost of trading [is] expected to widen sharply if Donald Trump were to win." Are the banks a little less certain of a Clinton victory than e.g. the prediction markets?
Update, 3:10pm: This blog usually racks up around a thousand page views per day. As of mid-afternoon, it is approaching TEN thousand page views today. Welcome to KN@PPSTER, new readers! If you like what you see here, feel free to poke around, and also to check out my podcast, the libertarian op-ed mill I run, and the daily email newsletter I publish.
Update, 3:20pm: I wonder if I'm having a case of confirmation bias today. That Reuters story mentioned above perked my ears up. Then a couple of minutes ago I was walking past the TV and heard the MSNBC anchor say that when they come back a reporter will be talking about "whether turnout is strong enough to keep Hillary Clinton's hopes alive." Is that a perception shift? It seems to me that usually phrases like "hopes alive" are said about an underdog, not a favorite.
Update, 7:01pm: Polls are beginning to close in the Eastern time zone. I'll start filling in states as MSNBC calls them, way down at the bottom, without comment up here except when there's something to actually talk about.
Update, 7:20pm: MSNBC just announced very early numbers from Florida. Trump 59%, Clinton 30%. Those numbers are already changing according to Politico. As I type this, Trump 50.4%, Clinton 47.1%, Gary Johnson 1.8%, Jill Stein 0.5%, Darrell Castle and Rocky de la Fuente 0.1% each. Looks like the state is going to swing back and forth all night and it may be a nail-biter.
Update, 10:20pm: As I write this, MSNBC is calling Ohio for Trump but has not called Florida and North Carolina yet. They are looking good for Trump. Michigan also looks like it's going to go for Trump as I predicted, but that's not quite as solid. Pennsylvania hasn't been called for Clinton yet, but I'm thinking it's probably going to go with her. I'm looking like 4 for 5 in those states on my predictions. I'm going to go sleep for two hours and come back. Hey, dL, are you as confident in a Clinton win as you have been up to now?
Update, 11:22pm: Couldn't sleep for all the bellyaching in the other room (I left MSNBC on). At present, of the states that MSNBC has actually called, I am 37 for 37 on my predictions. I'm expect it will turn out that I was wrong on Iowa and possibly Wisconsin (I picked them both for Clinton, they're looking like Trump states), as well as quite likely Pennsylvania.
Update, 11:35pm: Florida goes for Trump. Just like I said it would. Geez ... if you people would just listen to me we wouldn't have to stay up all night counting votes, would we?
Update, 12:02am: Finally my first bad pick. I had Iowa down for Clinton. Goes for Trump.
Update, 12:25am: Wow, I missed it -- some time in the last 24 hours or so, this blog passed 1 million page views since I started using Google stats to keep track (Sitemeter crapped out at nearly a million visits several years ago).
Update, 1:55am: MSNBC has not called Pennsylvania for Trump yet. However, Politico, The Hill, and the Washington Post all have. So I'm going to call it as well. MSNBC is just milking it. With 99.3% of precincts reporting, Trump is up by 2.2%, about 75,000 votes. Trump is now six electoral votes short of 270 and victory.
Update, 5:14am: OK, had to crap out. I see that MSNBC finally called Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (and, therefore, the election) for Trump, with New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, and Arizona still up in the air. Of the states where the winner is known, I predicted 44 of 46 accurately.
I'm under the impression I had a better predictive outing than most pollsters, pundits, and analysts this year. That and five bucks will get me an iced white chocolate mocha latte at Starbucks. But you know I'm going to brag about it for the next two to four years, right?
State-by-state results:
Update, 10:45am: A few days ago I made my predictions regarding third party performance over at Independent Political Report. Here they are:
Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party): 2.3% +/- 0.3%
Jill Stein (Green Party): 1.9% +/- 0.3%
Darrell Castle (Constitution Party): 0.5% +/- 0.2%
Evan McMullin ("Never Trump" Republican): 23% +/- 1% in Utah
I didn't try to predict how McMullin will do in the 10 other states where he's on the ballot. I'm guessing low single digits in all of them, but it's hard to tell.
Update, 12:45pm: Reuters is reporting that "Banks warn clients to brace for FX volatility after U.S. vote." The idea being that "the gap between buying and selling prices that determines the cost of trading [is] expected to widen sharply if Donald Trump were to win." Are the banks a little less certain of a Clinton victory than e.g. the prediction markets?
Update, 3:10pm: This blog usually racks up around a thousand page views per day. As of mid-afternoon, it is approaching TEN thousand page views today. Welcome to KN@PPSTER, new readers! If you like what you see here, feel free to poke around, and also to check out my podcast, the libertarian op-ed mill I run, and the daily email newsletter I publish.
Update, 3:20pm: I wonder if I'm having a case of confirmation bias today. That Reuters story mentioned above perked my ears up. Then a couple of minutes ago I was walking past the TV and heard the MSNBC anchor say that when they come back a reporter will be talking about "whether turnout is strong enough to keep Hillary Clinton's hopes alive." Is that a perception shift? It seems to me that usually phrases like "hopes alive" are said about an underdog, not a favorite.
Update, 7:01pm: Polls are beginning to close in the Eastern time zone. I'll start filling in states as MSNBC calls them, way down at the bottom, without comment up here except when there's something to actually talk about.
Update, 7:20pm: MSNBC just announced very early numbers from Florida. Trump 59%, Clinton 30%. Those numbers are already changing according to Politico. As I type this, Trump 50.4%, Clinton 47.1%, Gary Johnson 1.8%, Jill Stein 0.5%, Darrell Castle and Rocky de la Fuente 0.1% each. Looks like the state is going to swing back and forth all night and it may be a nail-biter.
Update, 10:20pm: As I write this, MSNBC is calling Ohio for Trump but has not called Florida and North Carolina yet. They are looking good for Trump. Michigan also looks like it's going to go for Trump as I predicted, but that's not quite as solid. Pennsylvania hasn't been called for Clinton yet, but I'm thinking it's probably going to go with her. I'm looking like 4 for 5 in those states on my predictions. I'm going to go sleep for two hours and come back. Hey, dL, are you as confident in a Clinton win as you have been up to now?
Update, 11:22pm: Couldn't sleep for all the bellyaching in the other room (I left MSNBC on). At present, of the states that MSNBC has actually called, I am 37 for 37 on my predictions. I'm expect it will turn out that I was wrong on Iowa and possibly Wisconsin (I picked them both for Clinton, they're looking like Trump states), as well as quite likely Pennsylvania.
Update, 11:35pm: Florida goes for Trump. Just like I said it would. Geez ... if you people would just listen to me we wouldn't have to stay up all night counting votes, would we?
Update, 12:02am: Finally my first bad pick. I had Iowa down for Clinton. Goes for Trump.
Update, 12:25am: Wow, I missed it -- some time in the last 24 hours or so, this blog passed 1 million page views since I started using Google stats to keep track (Sitemeter crapped out at nearly a million visits several years ago).
Update, 1:55am: MSNBC has not called Pennsylvania for Trump yet. However, Politico, The Hill, and the Washington Post all have. So I'm going to call it as well. MSNBC is just milking it. With 99.3% of precincts reporting, Trump is up by 2.2%, about 75,000 votes. Trump is now six electoral votes short of 270 and victory.
Update, 5:14am: OK, had to crap out. I see that MSNBC finally called Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (and, therefore, the election) for Trump, with New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, and Arizona still up in the air. Of the states where the winner is known, I predicted 44 of 46 accurately.
I'm under the impression I had a better predictive outing than most pollsters, pundits, and analysts this year. That and five bucks will get me an iced white chocolate mocha latte at Starbucks. But you know I'm going to brag about it for the next two to four years, right?
State-by-state results:
AK -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
AL -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
AZ -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: ?
AR -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
CA -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
CO -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
CT -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
DE -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
FL -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
GA -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
HI -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
ID -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
IL -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
IN -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
IA -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Trump ✗
KS -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
KY -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
LA -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
ME -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓ (Note: Trump gets 1 electoral vote, Clinton 3; I did not predict the split)
MD -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
MA -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
MI -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: ?
MN -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: ?
MS -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
MO -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
MT -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
NE -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
NV -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
NH -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: ?
NJ -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
NM -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
NY -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
NC -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
ND -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
OH -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
OK -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
OR -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
PA -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
RI -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
SC -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
SD -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
TN -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
TX -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
UT -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
VT -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
VA -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
WA -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Clinton ✓
WV -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
WI -- My Prediction: Clinton | Actual: Trump ✗
WY -- My Prediction: Trump | Actual: Trump ✓
Some Election Morning Photography
Instead of taking my daily bike ride at 4am, I decided to leave about 6:30 and see how things looked at "my" polling place as voting was set to begin (in Florida, poll hours are 7am-7pm). I got there about 10 minutes before 7.
This isn't all the signs, of course, just a sample that fit nicely into a photo. There were some signs for Democratic Party candidates ... but none for Hillary Clinton. On the presidential level, only Trump had signage there.
On one hand, west of Gainesville to the Gulf Coast -- rural Alachua County and all of Levy County -- is generally GOP territory (while I was out and about last night, I saw last-minute Trump signs springing up, a guy driving a pickup truck down the road flying a giant Trump flag, etc.).
On the other hand, this particular area is smack in the middle of upscale university city suburbia, so I'd expect it to be something of a Democratic island. I haven't looked at prior presidential election returns for the area, and frankly the area is in enough flux with new developments, etc., that I'm not sure they'd tell me anything. But I'd say it's telling that Democratic sheriff Sadie Darnell and Democratic congressional candidate Ken McGurn and Democratic state senate candidate Rod Smith and Democratic state legislature candidate Marihelen Wheeler have signs up at that place and Hillary Clinton doesn't.
This isn't all the signs, of course, just a sample that fit nicely into a photo. There were some signs for Democratic Party candidates ... but none for Hillary Clinton. On the presidential level, only Trump had signage there.
On one hand, west of Gainesville to the Gulf Coast -- rural Alachua County and all of Levy County -- is generally GOP territory (while I was out and about last night, I saw last-minute Trump signs springing up, a guy driving a pickup truck down the road flying a giant Trump flag, etc.).
On the other hand, this particular area is smack in the middle of upscale university city suburbia, so I'd expect it to be something of a Democratic island. I haven't looked at prior presidential election returns for the area, and frankly the area is in enough flux with new developments, etc., that I'm not sure they'd tell me anything. But I'd say it's telling that Democratic sheriff Sadie Darnell and Democratic congressional candidate Ken McGurn and Democratic state senate candidate Rod Smith and Democratic state legislature candidate Marihelen Wheeler have signs up at that place and Hillary Clinton doesn't.
Ten minutes before the polling place opened, there were more than 20 people lined up to vote. I've definitely seen longer lines, but in Florida nearly half of the state's voters had already cast their ballots by yesterday in early voting. I'm guessing that with lines at 6:50am on election day too, Florida will beat its 2012 turnout of 72%.
How did the early voting play out? Hard to tell. As the Miami Herald story linked above notes:
- Somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.6 million Democrats and 2.5 million Republicans voted early this year -- a party affiliation differential of less than 100,000 votes. In 2012, that differential was twice as large in favor of the Democrats. Advantage Trump.
- On the other hand, early voting turnout was higher in Miami-Dade (55%) and Broward (52%) counties, Democratic strongholds, versus the rest of the state (49.5%) -- also a reversal, as those two counties usually lag the state in turnout. Advantage Clinton.
Friday, November 04, 2016
This Election Still Looks Like a Trump Win to Me
 |
| Donald Trump speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Right now the RealClearPolitics "no tossups" map -- where they call the race in each state for whichever candidate is currently ahead -- has Hillary Clinton winning with 297 electoral votes to Trump's 241.
Now, remember what I've been saying lately -- I think Trump will almost certainly carry any state where he polls within 5% of Clinton. Why? Two reasons:
- I think that a non-trivial fraction of Trump voters won't say they're voting for Trump. Not even to a pollster. They don't want their family, friends and neighbors to know, so they're not telling anyone.
- Even though this is an "open" election with no incumbent, there's an extent to which it is a referendum on Barack Obama's presidency and the Democratic Party. That makes Trump the challenger. Voters who wait until the last minute to decide vote for the challenger, not for the incumbent. That effect may be a little muted since it's the incumbent party, not person, we're talking about here, but it's still the way things tend to go. This means that Trump is going to be gaining, not losing, over the next few days.
Note that neither of those things are really depending on e.g. some kind of massive Wikileaks bombshell than ends with something like Hillary Clinton being perp-walked in leg irons and orange coveralls on Monday. Not saying that couldn't conceivably happen. Just saying that my prediction doesn't depend on it happening.
Now, have a look at that RCP "no tossups" map and think about the non-Romney states I said Trump would carry. RCP's "no tossups" calls three of them -- Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida -- for Clinton, with only Ohio going for Trump (as I think it will, and he is 5 points up there).
BUT:
- The two Michigan polls done since Tuesday, the first of the month, have Trump within either 3 or 4 points of Clinton -- 3 if Jill Stein is included.
- The only Pennsylvania poll done since Tuesday has Trump and Clinton tied.
- The only Florida poll done in November has Clinton 4 points up on Trump. That's toward the edge of my formula and right at the edge of Margin of Error, but I'm fairly confident in Trump winning the state.
So, Clinton was at 297 and Trump was at 241 in the "no tossups." Looking at those three states and assuming the rest of the map is in fact correct:
If Trump wins Florida but not Michigan or Pennsylvania, he wins the election with 270 electoral votes.
If Trump wins Michigan and Pennsylvania but not Florida, he wins the election with 277 electoral votes
If Trump wins Michigan and Florida but not Pennsylvania, he wins the election with 286 electoral votes.
If Trump wins Pennsylvania and Florida but not Michigan, he wins the election with 290 electoral votes.
If he wins Michigan AND Pennsylvania AND Florida, he wins the election with 306 electoral votes.
Unless there's some massive fundamental shift between now and Tuesday, I believe Trump will win that round of voting and, barring faithless electors or personal incapacity of some sort (i.e. severe illness or death), will be the next president of the United States
No, I don't like that any more than you do.
Tuesday, August 09, 2016
Frankly, I'm Relieved
[Note: I am writing this post at about 6am on Tuesday morning, but don't plan to actually publish it until after the Reform Party announces the outcome of its presidential nomination process; it would be rude to preempt them with hints as to what it is that I'm led to believe they're going to announce - TLK]
[Additional Note: Well, once again my assumption that anything would happen in a timely manner has been deflated; my information is that the Reform Party chose its presidential/vice-presidential nominees late last night ... but so far as I can tell they still haven't gotten round to, you know, SAYING SO - TLK]
No, not sour grapes. Genuine relief. To explain why, here's a brief exchange I had with Red Philips on Facebook last night:
Now in point of fact there still hasn't been an actual announcement 13 hours after the last projected date for one, but I am told that in the middle of the night the Reform Party's nine delegates did finally manage, after nearly two weeks, to wrap up the process of taking a vote and choosing a presidential candidate, and that that candidate was someone other than my running mate, Darcy Richardson (which presumably means the vice-presidential candidate is someone other than me).
Let me reiterate: Nearly two weeks for nine people to complete a simple process that the Libertarian Party managed to get through in a few hours a few weeks ago in Orlando with more than 1,000 delegates participating.
To the extent that I was interested in being the Reform Party's vice-presidential nominee this year, my interest was about helping the Reform Party rebuild itself organizationally (my payoff for doing so would be learning that skill).
But I have to admit, that job was probably beyond my abilities. The level of dysfunction it takes for nine people to need two weeks to take a simple vote is probably just beyond my help. Or anyone else's.
Note that I am not criticizing the content of the decision here. From what I know of who was picked, I understand the reasons even if I think they were given the wrong weight. But making the decision was a process so simple that it should have been impossible to screw up very badly.
Good luck to the Reform Party.
[Additional Note: Well, once again my assumption that anything would happen in a timely manner has been deflated; my information is that the Reform Party chose its presidential/vice-presidential nominees late last night ... but so far as I can tell they still haven't gotten round to, you know, SAYING SO - TLK]
No, not sour grapes. Genuine relief. To explain why, here's a brief exchange I had with Red Philips on Facebook last night:
Red Phillips: Any word on the [Reform Party] nomination yet?
Thomas L. Knapp: Nope.
It was supposed to be decided on July 29th.
Then it was supposed to be decided by email ballot and announced at 5pm today.
Then it was "we'll try to have a decision by 9pm."
9pm has come and gone.
Keep in mind that this is nine delegates voting on a single issue.
Even if it went to multiple ballots, it's something nine seventh graders who'd never had a civics class or seen a copy of Robert's could have figured out in 60-90 minutes, tops.
They've taken ten days.
Now in point of fact there still hasn't been an actual announcement 13 hours after the last projected date for one, but I am told that in the middle of the night the Reform Party's nine delegates did finally manage, after nearly two weeks, to wrap up the process of taking a vote and choosing a presidential candidate, and that that candidate was someone other than my running mate, Darcy Richardson (which presumably means the vice-presidential candidate is someone other than me).
Let me reiterate: Nearly two weeks for nine people to complete a simple process that the Libertarian Party managed to get through in a few hours a few weeks ago in Orlando with more than 1,000 delegates participating.
To the extent that I was interested in being the Reform Party's vice-presidential nominee this year, my interest was about helping the Reform Party rebuild itself organizationally (my payoff for doing so would be learning that skill).
But I have to admit, that job was probably beyond my abilities. The level of dysfunction it takes for nine people to need two weeks to take a simple vote is probably just beyond my help. Or anyone else's.
Note that I am not criticizing the content of the decision here. From what I know of who was picked, I understand the reasons even if I think they were given the wrong weight. But making the decision was a process so simple that it should have been impossible to screw up very badly.
Good luck to the Reform Party.
Let Me Defend the Johnson Campaign
You know I don't do that very often, right?
A very nice summation of the "story" here at Brand New (hat tip: Warren Redlich, publisher of Independent Political Report):
Yes, you read that right:
Or, as SPARK CEO Tony Miller puts it at Bay News 9 (also h/t Warren):
SPARK produced a cute little video accusing the Johnson campaign of "swiping" their offering (h/t Joe Buchman, also of IPR):
So ...
Would publicly crediting SPARK with making a useful suggestion have been the nice thing to do? Yes.
Was not doing so a dick move? Well, sort of.
But I can't really work up any tears for SPARK.
They could have waited for the campaign to come to them for a proposal before creating one (unlikely, unless there were previously existing ties between the company and the campaign, but that's how it goes).
Or they could privately have worked up the proposal on unsolicited spec and offered it to the campaign with some kind of pre-disclosure agreement that if it was liked it would be bought, and that if it was not bought it would not be used. The campaign might not have agreed to look at it under those conditions, but again, that's how it goes.
Instead, they decided to loudly, publicly shout "HEY GARY JOHNSON, WHY DON'T YOU DO THIS?" in a self-promotional venue. That is, they were using the proposal to drum up business for themselves from potential clients other than the Johnson campaign. It was advertising by hypothetical demonstration. "Here's how good we are -- see, this is what we would be doing if we were doing this guy's campaign."
Now they are bellyaching that he did what they publicly said he should do ... without their permission? What the f**k?
And keep in mind that it's about 99% likely that Gary Johnson never saw SPARK's offering or had any idea that his campaign consultants or staffers had decided to run with a very similar theme until SPARK started griping about it.
What he likely saw was the final product. He's probably very surprised to learn that he's been paying good money to one company for work that another company had already done and published.
If I was Gary, I'd probably be firing someone over this, because I wouldn't want lazy, dishonest assholes charging me for other people's work and setting me up for public embarrassment.
And I'd probably be going ahead and publicly thanking SPARK for their freely, publicly offered work because that's the nice thing to do and it would cost me nothing to do it.
But if I was SPARK, I'd consider a name change, because after the shit they just pulled their name should be mud among potential clients.
A very nice summation of the "story" here at Brand New (hat tip: Warren Redlich, publisher of Independent Political Report):
Two months ago, Tampa, FL-based SPARK published on its online quarterly publication a conceptual, speculative identity for 2016 Libertarian Party U.S. presidential nominee, Gary Johnson. In the short time since, his campaign has adopted the concept without consent (aka 'stolen the work') from Spark.
Yes, you read that right:
- Some guys publicly, and without any solicitation from the campaign, suggested that the campaign do X;
- The campaign did X;
- The guys now think they were "stolen" from.
Or, as SPARK CEO Tony Miller puts it at Bay News 9 (also h/t Warren):
I think there was some surprise that they hadn't contacted us first and said "hey, do you mind if we use this" or "hey, we are going to use this" ... I think they are probably using that thinking it was out there in the public domain for them to use and probably don't have a full understanding (of what) creative license is all about ... You just can't take somebody's work without permission or without potentially paying for it.
SPARK produced a cute little video accusing the Johnson campaign of "swiping" their offering (h/t Joe Buchman, also of IPR):
So ...
Would publicly crediting SPARK with making a useful suggestion have been the nice thing to do? Yes.
Was not doing so a dick move? Well, sort of.
But I can't really work up any tears for SPARK.
They could have waited for the campaign to come to them for a proposal before creating one (unlikely, unless there were previously existing ties between the company and the campaign, but that's how it goes).
Or they could privately have worked up the proposal on unsolicited spec and offered it to the campaign with some kind of pre-disclosure agreement that if it was liked it would be bought, and that if it was not bought it would not be used. The campaign might not have agreed to look at it under those conditions, but again, that's how it goes.
Instead, they decided to loudly, publicly shout "HEY GARY JOHNSON, WHY DON'T YOU DO THIS?" in a self-promotional venue. That is, they were using the proposal to drum up business for themselves from potential clients other than the Johnson campaign. It was advertising by hypothetical demonstration. "Here's how good we are -- see, this is what we would be doing if we were doing this guy's campaign."
Now they are bellyaching that he did what they publicly said he should do ... without their permission? What the f**k?
And keep in mind that it's about 99% likely that Gary Johnson never saw SPARK's offering or had any idea that his campaign consultants or staffers had decided to run with a very similar theme until SPARK started griping about it.
What he likely saw was the final product. He's probably very surprised to learn that he's been paying good money to one company for work that another company had already done and published.
If I was Gary, I'd probably be firing someone over this, because I wouldn't want lazy, dishonest assholes charging me for other people's work and setting me up for public embarrassment.
And I'd probably be going ahead and publicly thanking SPARK for their freely, publicly offered work because that's the nice thing to do and it would cost me nothing to do it.
But if I was SPARK, I'd consider a name change, because after the shit they just pulled their name should be mud among potential clients.
Wednesday, August 03, 2016
#ReformParty meets #Headtalker
Thanks to everyone who participated in the Choose Darcy Headtalker campaign!
At noon today, 53 people (actually, 53 social media accounts -- each account is treated as a different person, I've noticed) told more than 1.2 million friends/followers/connections:
In the four hours since then, those social media messages have produced more than 200 visits to Darcy's campaign web site. Presumably that number will increase. The analytics are a little primitive, but it looks to me like the traffic produced has just plateaued in the last hour or so. My guess is that it will decrease fairly quickly and that 12-24 hours from now we'll have seen the last of it. But I wouldn't be surprised to hit 500 visits when it's all said and done.
This last four days has been a strange form of political campaign. Its aim is to demonstrate to nine voting delegates, who will choose the Reform Party's presidential nominee between now and next Monday, that one campaign is both serious about, and capable of, promoting the Reform Party itself.
Darcy gave me a campaign budget of $50 and permission to experiment. I personally set today as the campaign's end date -- if we haven't made our point by now, we won't, and that gives the delegates four days to cogitate.
With that $50, I:
At noon today, 53 people (actually, 53 social media accounts -- each account is treated as a different person, I've noticed) told more than 1.2 million friends/followers/connections:
@ReformParty: Revive Ross Perot's Reform Party -- nominate Darcy Richardson for president!
In the four hours since then, those social media messages have produced more than 200 visits to Darcy's campaign web site. Presumably that number will increase. The analytics are a little primitive, but it looks to me like the traffic produced has just plateaued in the last hour or so. My guess is that it will decrease fairly quickly and that 12-24 hours from now we'll have seen the last of it. But I wouldn't be surprised to hit 500 visits when it's all said and done.
This last four days has been a strange form of political campaign. Its aim is to demonstrate to nine voting delegates, who will choose the Reform Party's presidential nominee between now and next Monday, that one campaign is both serious about, and capable of, promoting the Reform Party itself.
Darcy gave me a campaign budget of $50 and permission to experiment. I personally set today as the campaign's end date -- if we haven't made our point by now, we won't, and that gives the delegates four days to cogitate.
With that $50, I:
- Showed the Reform Party (through the lens of Darcy's campaign) to more than 4,000 people via Google Adwords, with a click thru rate to the campaign web site of about 1/2 of 1% (not terrible for Internet advertising).
- Showed the Reform Party (through the lens of Darcy's campaign) to about 1,600 people via Twitter advertising, with a click thru rate of 2.78% (toward the top of the normal range for Twitter ads according to some of my research).
- Deployed about 100,000 468x60 banner ad impressions (through various services) to show the Reform Party (through the lens of Darcy's campaign), as best I can tell, about 50,000 times so far (the ads will probably run out over the next few days -- they're the only part of this campaign that continues beyond now). It's hard to gauge the number of unique viewers, but it's safe to say that banner advertising is pretty dead as an effective reach tool -- the click-thru rate tops out at about 1/10th of 1%.
- Showed the Reform Party (through the lens of Darcy's campaign) to more than 1.2 million people via Headtalker. Click-thru rate to be determined, but I expect that more people will visit Darcy's campaign web site in the 24 hour period starting at noon today than voted for the Reform Party's presidential ticket in 2008.
So, Reform Party delegates, once again I ask:
Take a look at your web site hits. Which candidate is sending people your way today?
Take a look at social media chatter about the Reform Party. What's inspiring it today?
How do those numbers compare to a normal day?
Darcy Richardson is serious about rebuilding the Reform Party. Are you?
And Then There Was The Time ...
... that I tried to do something, failed, and everything worked out OK anyway.
My goal was to amass, from my own personal "reach" -- 5k Facebook friends, more than 2k Twitter followers, 500+ LinkedIn connections, this blog, the podcast, but not the professional/work with others stuff like RRND or the Garrison Center -- 100 supporters for a Headtalker campaign to boost Darcy Richardson's Reform Party presidential nomination campaign.
Didn't happen. I was somewhat surprised (unpleasantly as you might guess) that I couldn't get fewer than 1/70th of the people I talk to on a regular basis to do something that cost them nothing more than a minute or so of their time. On the other hand, there was a three-day time limit. So maybe something longer-term would allow me to get better response. Anyway, I learned some stuff that should improve future efforts to mobilize people for this or that. And THANK YOU to everyone who did come through.
But I had options, and used them. I scaled back my goal to 50 supporters and paid a few bucks for a little commercial "reach" (the entirety of this week's Internet campaigning will have cost less than $50 -- that's for banner advertising, Google ads, Twitter ads and the Headtalker) to get things where they needed to be. So now it's at 53 supporters and the message will go out at noon eastern today to more than 1.2 million people.
Reaching ~1.3 million people for less than fifty bucks from a standing start within four days of deciding to do so should be a wake-up call for the Reform Party National Committee. It shows that Darcy Richardson is serious. Now they just have to decide whether or not they're serious.
My goal was to amass, from my own personal "reach" -- 5k Facebook friends, more than 2k Twitter followers, 500+ LinkedIn connections, this blog, the podcast, but not the professional/work with others stuff like RRND or the Garrison Center -- 100 supporters for a Headtalker campaign to boost Darcy Richardson's Reform Party presidential nomination campaign.
Didn't happen. I was somewhat surprised (unpleasantly as you might guess) that I couldn't get fewer than 1/70th of the people I talk to on a regular basis to do something that cost them nothing more than a minute or so of their time. On the other hand, there was a three-day time limit. So maybe something longer-term would allow me to get better response. Anyway, I learned some stuff that should improve future efforts to mobilize people for this or that. And THANK YOU to everyone who did come through.
But I had options, and used them. I scaled back my goal to 50 supporters and paid a few bucks for a little commercial "reach" (the entirety of this week's Internet campaigning will have cost less than $50 -- that's for banner advertising, Google ads, Twitter ads and the Headtalker) to get things where they needed to be. So now it's at 53 supporters and the message will go out at noon eastern today to more than 1.2 million people.
Reaching ~1.3 million people for less than fifty bucks from a standing start within four days of deciding to do so should be a wake-up call for the Reform Party National Committee. It shows that Darcy Richardson is serious. Now they just have to decide whether or not they're serious.
Monday, August 01, 2016
@ReformParty Twitter Ads Engagement -- Not Bad!
I ran a test campaign on Twitter ads with a length of one day or cost of $5, whichever it hit first. The point was to promote Darcy Richardson's campaign for the Reform Party's presidential nomination, so the tweet/ad content was "Darcy Richardson 2016 -- Reviving Ross Perot's @ReformParty," with associated graphic and link to Darcy's web site.
The engagement rate was 2.8%, which in my experience is pretty damn good for web advertising and toward the top end of usual results for Twitter ads in particular. The ad received 1,607 impressions and resulted in 45 click-thrus.
Of course, what I am really interested in is getting my "Choose Darcy" Headtalker campaign up to the 100 supporters it needs by Wednesday, which will likely result in several million exposures. Please help me out with that.
I'll probably get Google ads going later today, also on a test basis. I have two goals this week.
One is to convince the Reform Party to nominate Darcy.
The other is to demonstrate to the Reform Party what effective guerilla third party political campaigning looks like. They still seem to be in traditional campaign mode, even though the bottom fell completely out of that strategy after 2004, since when their presidential candidates have received a grand total of fewer than 2,000 votes across two presidential elections (about 500 fewer votes in two elections than the Boston Tea Party's ticket received in its single presidential outing in 2008).
The engagement rate was 2.8%, which in my experience is pretty damn good for web advertising and toward the top end of usual results for Twitter ads in particular. The ad received 1,607 impressions and resulted in 45 click-thrus.
Of course, what I am really interested in is getting my "Choose Darcy" Headtalker campaign up to the 100 supporters it needs by Wednesday, which will likely result in several million exposures. Please help me out with that.
I'll probably get Google ads going later today, also on a test basis. I have two goals this week.
One is to convince the Reform Party to nominate Darcy.
The other is to demonstrate to the Reform Party what effective guerilla third party political campaigning looks like. They still seem to be in traditional campaign mode, even though the bottom fell completely out of that strategy after 2004, since when their presidential candidates have received a grand total of fewer than 2,000 votes across two presidential elections (about 500 fewer votes in two elections than the Boston Tea Party's ticket received in its single presidential outing in 2008).
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Well, Then, I Guess It's On
As I mentioned yesterday, the Reform Party was, for some reason, unable to settle on a presidential ticket at its national convention and will be making that decision by email ballot over the course of the next week.
Up to that point, I was content to affirm my acceptance of Darcy Richardson's request that I serve as his running mate, outline my history with the party, and otherwise pretty much leave the matter to the judgment of the delegates, who presumably are more familiar with the party as it exists and well positioned to see to its interests.
But now, I confess, my blood is up a little. The delegates did a disservice to their party's nominees, whoever those nominees may end up being, by postponing the decision for a week with only three months remaining between now and election day. The ballot access filing fee / elector list deadline in Colorado is only two days after the scheduled announcement. The candidates need to be campaigning.
So at least two of them -- Darcy and myself -- are campaigning. We've already set up our first hundred thousand banner ad impressions, with more to come as needed. A twitter advertising campaign begins tonight, a Google campaign tonight or tomorrow, a "Headtalker" social media reach campaign awaits approval for launch, etc.
Thousands -- probably tens of thousands, maybe more than 100,000 -- will be exposed to Richardson/Knapp 2016 by the end of this week. And they will be exposed in a way that emphasizes the Reform Party, so that even if we aren't the nominees, the party benefits.
I hope the delegates will take note of which candidates are doing what, and how well, and why.
Up to that point, I was content to affirm my acceptance of Darcy Richardson's request that I serve as his running mate, outline my history with the party, and otherwise pretty much leave the matter to the judgment of the delegates, who presumably are more familiar with the party as it exists and well positioned to see to its interests.
But now, I confess, my blood is up a little. The delegates did a disservice to their party's nominees, whoever those nominees may end up being, by postponing the decision for a week with only three months remaining between now and election day. The ballot access filing fee / elector list deadline in Colorado is only two days after the scheduled announcement. The candidates need to be campaigning.
So at least two of them -- Darcy and myself -- are campaigning. We've already set up our first hundred thousand banner ad impressions, with more to come as needed. A twitter advertising campaign begins tonight, a Google campaign tonight or tomorrow, a "Headtalker" social media reach campaign awaits approval for launch, etc.
Thousands -- probably tens of thousands, maybe more than 100,000 -- will be exposed to Richardson/Knapp 2016 by the end of this week. And they will be exposed in a way that emphasizes the Reform Party, so that even if we aren't the nominees, the party benefits.
I hope the delegates will take note of which candidates are doing what, and how well, and why.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Reform Party Presidential Nomination Results
There aren't any. At least not yet. Delegates at the Reform Party's national convention in Bohemia, New York, narrowed the field down to two possibilities -- Rocky de la Fuente and Darcy Richardson -- but were unable to reach a decision before adjourning.
What happens next? I've heard two different things:
It seems nearly inexplicable to me that they would put the choice off until August 8th, especially if the criterion is ballot access (Mr. Fuente is clearly the candidate who would appear on the most ballots and that's not going to change in the next nine days), so I'm assuming Darcy's interpretation of events is the correct one.
Of course, this leaves me a bit on tenterhooks since I'm Darcy Richardson's preferred running mate. I had expected to know today whether to continue ramping up campaign operations or let it go and get back to other things.
I guess the campaign goes on, either for 48 more hours or nine more days. So I just went ahead and paid an ad broker for 50,000 more impressions of the campaign banner. Here it is (reduced to 400 pixels in width because 468 breaks my blog post formatting):
UPDATE: I just heard from Darcy, who reached out to Reform Party secretary Nicholas Hensley by email for clarification (when he got the impression that the issue would be decided and announced this Monday, it was by phone while he was driving). The decision will, in fact, be announced on the 8th.
My working theory for why they would rob their nominee of more than a week of campaign time with only three months to go until the election is that they are leaning toward Fuente and have given him time to withdraw from the Democratic primary for US Senate in Florida (Florida does not allow a candidate to be on the ballot for two offices, so if he tries to do both the Reform Party will likely lose its only solid ballot line for the year).
I guess I'll improve the time by campaigning. If Darcy's not the nominee, I don't want it to be due to a lack of effort on my part.
What happens next? I've heard two different things:
- From Darcy Richardson, I hear that there will be an email ballot of the nine delegates to make a final decision, and the result will be announced at 5pm on Monday, August 1st.
- At Richard Winger's Ballot Access News, I read that the choice has been postponed until August 8th. No word at BAN on whether the process is email ballot or something else, but Winger's opinion is that they are "likely to nominate the presidential candidate who has qualified for the most state ballots by then."
It seems nearly inexplicable to me that they would put the choice off until August 8th, especially if the criterion is ballot access (Mr. Fuente is clearly the candidate who would appear on the most ballots and that's not going to change in the next nine days), so I'm assuming Darcy's interpretation of events is the correct one.
Of course, this leaves me a bit on tenterhooks since I'm Darcy Richardson's preferred running mate. I had expected to know today whether to continue ramping up campaign operations or let it go and get back to other things.
I guess the campaign goes on, either for 48 more hours or nine more days. So I just went ahead and paid an ad broker for 50,000 more impressions of the campaign banner. Here it is (reduced to 400 pixels in width because 468 breaks my blog post formatting):
Open to a Discussion About Looking Seriously ...
Gary Johnson has been in politics for more than two decades and has been running for president for five years now. At what point is he going to stop "being open to discussions about" or promising to "look seriously" at issues that are neither especially new nor especially complex?
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Clinton Presidency vs. Trump Presidency: How I See It
Disclaimer: I do not support Hillary Clinton. I do not support Donald Trump. I'm not going to vote for either one of them, especially not just to stop the other one from winning, nor am I going to encourage anyone else to do so. That said, I do think that their presidencies would be bad in different ways.
For purposes of metaphor, let's pretend that "the country" is an individual man or woman and that "the presidency" is that person's daily activities.
Here's what Mr. or Ms. America looks like as a Clinton presidency (in my opinion):
Every day, seven days a week, he or she sits down at a table, puts his or her right hand on the table, palm down, fingers spread, and then with his or her left hand uses a ball peen hammer to hit the right hand, sharply and with vigor, for eight straight hours. Presumably after four or eight years of that, every bone in the right hand will be not just broken but irreparably pulverized.
So to put it a different way: A Clinton presidency will be routinely ugly and painful and damaging and permanently disfiguring, but only suicidal on a freak accident basis (e.g. he or she accidentally hits herself hard right between the eyes on the backswing).
Here's what Mr. or Mrs. America looks like as a Trump presidency (in my opinion):
He or she has an apartment, and an office, on the 100th floors of adjacent buildings with a very narrow alley (3 or 4 feet wide) between them. Instead of taking an elevator down 100 floors down, then 100 floors up, every morning and every night, he or she decides it makes more sense to just jump across that alley twice a day. The office and the apartment both have balconies, and to make it more exciting, every morning and evening he or she dips his or her hands and feet in grease before climbing up on the balcony railing for the jump.
So to put it a different way: A Trump presidency won't be nearly as routinely ugly and painful as a Clinton presidency. It will be exciting and exhilarating ... until, one morning or evening, the jump becomes a 100-story fall followed by a terminal velocity encounter with hard asphalt.
I don't really care much for either prospect.
For purposes of metaphor, let's pretend that "the country" is an individual man or woman and that "the presidency" is that person's daily activities.
Here's what Mr. or Ms. America looks like as a Clinton presidency (in my opinion):
Every day, seven days a week, he or she sits down at a table, puts his or her right hand on the table, palm down, fingers spread, and then with his or her left hand uses a ball peen hammer to hit the right hand, sharply and with vigor, for eight straight hours. Presumably after four or eight years of that, every bone in the right hand will be not just broken but irreparably pulverized.
So to put it a different way: A Clinton presidency will be routinely ugly and painful and damaging and permanently disfiguring, but only suicidal on a freak accident basis (e.g. he or she accidentally hits herself hard right between the eyes on the backswing).
Here's what Mr. or Mrs. America looks like as a Trump presidency (in my opinion):
He or she has an apartment, and an office, on the 100th floors of adjacent buildings with a very narrow alley (3 or 4 feet wide) between them. Instead of taking an elevator down 100 floors down, then 100 floors up, every morning and every night, he or she decides it makes more sense to just jump across that alley twice a day. The office and the apartment both have balconies, and to make it more exciting, every morning and evening he or she dips his or her hands and feet in grease before climbing up on the balcony railing for the jump.
So to put it a different way: A Trump presidency won't be nearly as routinely ugly and painful as a Clinton presidency. It will be exciting and exhilarating ... until, one morning or evening, the jump becomes a 100-story fall followed by a terminal velocity encounter with hard asphalt.
I don't really care much for either prospect.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Just How Smart (or Dumb) are the Democrats?
In a moment, I'm gonna just turn this post over to Ian and Darryl of Free Talk Live, because they cover the matter fairly thoroughly (among other matters, including my own vice-presidential campaign -- it's talk radio, OK?). My two cents:
1) If most of the "superdelegates" changed their votes, they could in fact nominate Bernie Sanders rather than Hillary Clinton. For that matter, if they just abstained, they could force it to a second ballot, unbinding Clinton's delegates, and then go for an overwhelming Sanders vote.
2) If the Democrats nominate Sanders, they have a chance of winning this November. A slim chance, but a chance.
3) If the Democrats nominate Clinton, their chance of winning this November is close to non-existent at the moment and likely to get even worse very quickly -- presumably there are additional Servergate, Clinton Foundation, and DNC email revelations to come, being held by various parties for release right after the convention to destroy any hopes of a Clinton "poll bounce." She's toast, people.
So: Are the Democrats -- especially the "superdelegates" -- smart enough to pour piss out of a boot with instructions written on the heel? I wouldn't count on it, but one just never knows. And now, over to you, Ian and Darryl:
1) If most of the "superdelegates" changed their votes, they could in fact nominate Bernie Sanders rather than Hillary Clinton. For that matter, if they just abstained, they could force it to a second ballot, unbinding Clinton's delegates, and then go for an overwhelming Sanders vote.
2) If the Democrats nominate Sanders, they have a chance of winning this November. A slim chance, but a chance.
3) If the Democrats nominate Clinton, their chance of winning this November is close to non-existent at the moment and likely to get even worse very quickly -- presumably there are additional Servergate, Clinton Foundation, and DNC email revelations to come, being held by various parties for release right after the convention to destroy any hopes of a Clinton "poll bounce." She's toast, people.
So: Are the Democrats -- especially the "superdelegates" -- smart enough to pour piss out of a boot with instructions written on the heel? I wouldn't count on it, but one just never knows. And now, over to you, Ian and Darryl:
Monday, July 25, 2016
The Democratic National Convention is Going to be More Interesting Than The Republican National Convention
One of the reasons I've given for my prediction that Trump will romp in November is the anecdotal observation that Republicans never, ever, ever refuse in significant numbers to support their party's nominee. A few of them might stay home instead of voting, but they just don't revolt. Which is why the GOP shitshow came off like some kind of robot version of the Nuremberg rally, featuring Stetsons instead of Stahlhelme.
Democrats, on the other hand ...
Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to announce she'd be resigning as chair of the Democratic National Committee once the national convention was over. Then she was booed off the stage by her own state's delegates at a breakfast. Then she was forced to move her resignation up and hand over the gavel at the beginning, rather than at the end, of the convention.
Then Bernie Sanders tried to tell his supporting delegates that "we have got to elect Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine."
One of my out on a limb predictions:
Tim Kaine shouldn't clear his calendar after all. He'll be sacrificed and replaced with a "unity" VP candidate before the presidential nomination dog and pony show reaches its supposed high point, to to soothe the savage Democratic rank and file and get Hillary Clinton's sorry ass out of Philadelphia ahead of the tar/feather/rail combo this whole election cycle has been setting her up for. It won't help her in November, but one day at a time, right?
Democrats, on the other hand ...
Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to announce she'd be resigning as chair of the Democratic National Committee once the national convention was over. Then she was booed off the stage by her own state's delegates at a breakfast. Then she was forced to move her resignation up and hand over the gavel at the beginning, rather than at the end, of the convention.
Then Bernie Sanders tried to tell his supporting delegates that "we have got to elect Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine."
Tim Kaine shouldn't clear his calendar after all. He'll be sacrificed and replaced with a "unity" VP candidate before the presidential nomination dog and pony show reaches its supposed high point, to to soothe the savage Democratic rank and file and get Hillary Clinton's sorry ass out of Philadelphia ahead of the tar/feather/rail combo this whole election cycle has been setting her up for. It won't help her in November, but one day at a time, right?
Election 2016: Math vs. Path
In a previous post, I go over the concept of "on the ballot in enough states to mathematically be elected." For presidential candidates, the number representing "enough states" is either one or zero (zero reflecting the possibility of winning a state as a write-in). Since the US House of Representatives chooses the next president from among the top three recipients of electoral votes in the event that no candidate receives at least 270 electoral votes, carrying even one state (or even a congressional district in Maine or Nebraska) represents a possible, if narrow and rather implausible, path to the presidency.
I close that post out with:
How much more complicated?
Well, in the event that no vice-presidential candidate receives 270 or more electoral votes, the next vice-president is chosen by the US Senate from among the top two recipients of electoral votes.
From a set of three contenders, what is the fewest number of electoral votes that a candidate can receive while (1) coming in second place (2) from a field in which precisely three candidates receive electoral votes, while (3) holding the first place finisher to fewer than 270 electoral votes?
The answer, if my math is right, is 135.
If the first place finisher receives 269 votes and the second place finisher receives 135 votes, that leaves 134 votes for the third place finisher. Obviously the first place finisher could receive fewer than 269, or the second place more than 135, but like I said, 135 appears to be the absolute minimum number to get into a Senate-decided vice-presidential selection process by making the top two cut from among three contenders.
This means that the absolute minimum number of states that contender would have to win would be four. If a vice-presidential candidate won the electoral votes of California and Texas, that would bring in 93 electoral votes. The next two heaviest states are Florida and New York, with 29 each for a total of 151. Carrying only one of those two would leave the contender at 122, 13 electoral votes short, which could be made up for by carrying any one of eight states: Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey or Virginia. Absent one of those, it's going to end up taking five or more states to reach the magic number.
There's a huge gap between the one electoral vote that could conceivably make a president in the House and the 135 electoral votes it would take to potentially make a vice-president in the Senate.
Vis a vis the Libertarian Party, that makes the path to the vice-presidency much narrower for William Weld than the path to the presidency for Gary Johnson. It seems nearly certain that even if Johnson pushes the election to the House and prevails there, he'll be saddled with Mike Pence or Tim Kaine as sidekick.
Vis a vis the Reform Party, it likely closes off the vice-presidential nominee's path completely. The party's ticket will be on the ballot in states disposing of 58 total electoral votes (New York and Florida), plus possibly Louisiana with 8, bringing the potential total to 66. Note I said it likely closes the path off completely. There might be opportunities to register and have write-in votes counted in enough states to get the total up to 135. But it looks like President Darcy Richardson would likewise probably have to make do with Pence or Kaine in second chair. But I'll still do my best.
I close that post out with:
Bonus question: How many states must a vice-presidential candidate win in order for it to be mathematically possible for that vice-presidential candidate to be elected?
Hint: It's a lot more complicated than the other question/answer set.
How much more complicated?
Well, in the event that no vice-presidential candidate receives 270 or more electoral votes, the next vice-president is chosen by the US Senate from among the top two recipients of electoral votes.
From a set of three contenders, what is the fewest number of electoral votes that a candidate can receive while (1) coming in second place (2) from a field in which precisely three candidates receive electoral votes, while (3) holding the first place finisher to fewer than 270 electoral votes?
The answer, if my math is right, is 135.
If the first place finisher receives 269 votes and the second place finisher receives 135 votes, that leaves 134 votes for the third place finisher. Obviously the first place finisher could receive fewer than 269, or the second place more than 135, but like I said, 135 appears to be the absolute minimum number to get into a Senate-decided vice-presidential selection process by making the top two cut from among three contenders.
This means that the absolute minimum number of states that contender would have to win would be four. If a vice-presidential candidate won the electoral votes of California and Texas, that would bring in 93 electoral votes. The next two heaviest states are Florida and New York, with 29 each for a total of 151. Carrying only one of those two would leave the contender at 122, 13 electoral votes short, which could be made up for by carrying any one of eight states: Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey or Virginia. Absent one of those, it's going to end up taking five or more states to reach the magic number.
There's a huge gap between the one electoral vote that could conceivably make a president in the House and the 135 electoral votes it would take to potentially make a vice-president in the Senate.
Vis a vis the Libertarian Party, that makes the path to the vice-presidency much narrower for William Weld than the path to the presidency for Gary Johnson. It seems nearly certain that even if Johnson pushes the election to the House and prevails there, he'll be saddled with Mike Pence or Tim Kaine as sidekick.
Vis a vis the Reform Party, it likely closes off the vice-presidential nominee's path completely. The party's ticket will be on the ballot in states disposing of 58 total electoral votes (New York and Florida), plus possibly Louisiana with 8, bringing the potential total to 66. Note I said it likely closes the path off completely. There might be opportunities to register and have write-in votes counted in enough states to get the total up to 135. But it looks like President Darcy Richardson would likewise probably have to make do with Pence or Kaine in second chair. But I'll still do my best.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
You Know, I Suppose I Should Make This Formal
Attn: Delegates attending the Reform Party's 2016 national convention, July 29-31, Bohemia, New York
I, Thomas L. Knapp, hereby declare myself a candidate for the Reform Party's 2016 vice-presidential nomination. My declaration to this effect is pursuant to having been named as the preferred running mate of prospective 2016 Reform Party presidential nominee Darcy Richardson.
I aver that I am constitutionally qualified for election to the vice-presidency of the United States, being a natural born citizen thereof, having attained the age of 35 years (turning 50 this November, in fact), and having been 14 years a resident of the United States (the last time I left the United States was in late December of 1990, pursuant to military orders; I returned in late May of 1991).
I am neither wealthy nor famous, but I am an experienced campaigner, going back to 1992 when I gathered ballot access signatures for Reform Party founder Ross Perot's first presidential campaign and proudly cast my vote for him. I pledge, if nominated, to use such resources as I have at my disposal to actively and energetically campaign on behalf of the party and its presidential ticket, and to help begin the process of rebuilding a Reform Party which can put its next presidential ticket on many more ballots and back that ticket with a much higher level financial and volunteer support.
Due to the lateness of this declaration, I do not expect to be able to attend the party's national convention next weekend. However, I will gladly make myself available via phone or videoconference should my virtual "presence" be required. Between now and the convention I invite delegates to contact me via email (kubby.communications@gmail.com) or on Facebook (thomaslknapp). Said contacts can be escalated to phone or Skype as necessary.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully yours,
Thomas L. Knapp
I, Thomas L. Knapp, hereby declare myself a candidate for the Reform Party's 2016 vice-presidential nomination. My declaration to this effect is pursuant to having been named as the preferred running mate of prospective 2016 Reform Party presidential nominee Darcy Richardson.
I aver that I am constitutionally qualified for election to the vice-presidency of the United States, being a natural born citizen thereof, having attained the age of 35 years (turning 50 this November, in fact), and having been 14 years a resident of the United States (the last time I left the United States was in late December of 1990, pursuant to military orders; I returned in late May of 1991).
I am neither wealthy nor famous, but I am an experienced campaigner, going back to 1992 when I gathered ballot access signatures for Reform Party founder Ross Perot's first presidential campaign and proudly cast my vote for him. I pledge, if nominated, to use such resources as I have at my disposal to actively and energetically campaign on behalf of the party and its presidential ticket, and to help begin the process of rebuilding a Reform Party which can put its next presidential ticket on many more ballots and back that ticket with a much higher level financial and volunteer support.
Due to the lateness of this declaration, I do not expect to be able to attend the party's national convention next weekend. However, I will gladly make myself available via phone or videoconference should my virtual "presence" be required. Between now and the convention I invite delegates to contact me via email (kubby.communications@gmail.com) or on Facebook (thomaslknapp). Said contacts can be escalated to phone or Skype as necessary.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully yours,
Thomas L. Knapp
An Analogy I Haven't Heard Elsewhere Yet
Just throwing this out for discussion.
The 2016 US presidential election as analogous to the 2000 Mexican presidential election:
The 2016 US presidential election as analogous to the 2000 Mexican presidential election:
- The Democratic and Republican parties are merely two wings of the PRI.
- Trump and his supporters are the Alianza por el Cambio.
One obvious difference here is that Trump isn't defeating the Republicans and the Democrats in one swell foop. He defeated the Republicans first (in their own primary elections) and will now attempt to defeat the Democrats (in the general election).
But I think the dynamic is at least facially similar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)