Who Will Win the VA Governor's Race?

November 7th, Tuesday is Virginia's gubernatorial election. Democrat Ralph Northam and Republican Ed Gillepsie are facing off in what is the first governor's election since the 2016 election, and that's the kicker. I think Northam will lose for similar reasons that Hillary lost in 2016, turnout.

VA may be a soft-blue state, but that doesn't mean this race can't swing either way. The current RCP polling average has Northam at only a +1.2 point advantage. Though non Republican-leaning pollsters put him at a +4 or +5 point lead.

In order for any candidate to win in a close election, they need their base to turn out in high numbers, (obviously) so it's important to understand how the different bases operate.

In general, older voters tend to have high turnout, probably because they view voting as a civic duty. While Millennials tend to have lower turnout, only having very high turnout for candidates that they strongly support or agree with such as Barack Obama in 2008 or Bernie Sanders recently. It is hugely important for younger voters to turn out in high numbers.

Thus, if Ralph Northam wants to win, it's of immense importance that he appeals to policies millennials (and the Democratic party at large) find favorable. Such as free college which 80% of Democrats support and roughly 2/3 of millennials (Morning Consult) and Medicare for All which 65% of Democrats support and again roughly 2/3 of millennials (Qunnipac University).

While Ralph Northam has shown support for the decriminalization of marijuana and a $15 minimum wage which are also popular among the Democratic base, his campaign focus has not been on these populist issues that would greatly increase the chances that millennials and the larger Democratic base would turn out for him in high numbers.

Instead, his ads have focused on attacking Trump or Ed Gillespie, and promoting vocational training and apprenticeships, proposals that while not unpopular are far more meek than policies like Medicare for All which enjoy widespread support.

 (P.S: If you want to watch more ads, check out the Youtube channels for Gillespie and Northam, 30 seconds long and worth the time)

Furthermore, Northam's attacks on Gillespie by linking him to Trump probably won't do him much good either, as that alone didn't inspire the Democratic base to turn out in high numbers for Hillary Clinton in 2016 when it Trump literally was on the ticket. While some of Northam's attacks on Gillespie which call him a lobbyist are probably an effective way to attack him but don't translate into Northam's own base being excited to vote for him. Again, how did that work in 2016?

On the other hand, Gillespie can count on his base turning out in decent numbers because older Republican voters tend to vote more frequently, providing fairly good turnout anyway. So ultimately, it's Gillespie who will win, albeit with a probably slim margin of victory of 1-2 points.

(P.S: Do watch The Walking Dead, great show).

Visions of Khas: Why Trump Will Win the Presidency

Disclaimer: This projection is about what I think will happen, not what I want to happen. I don't support Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump in this election.

_______________________

Hey! So, believe it or not, I just finished writing this post.....but then I forgot to save. So I'm going to try and get this out as soon as possible, and I'll slowly add links and citations as time goes on. This probably won't be my best writing, as i've had to re-write ALL of what I've wrote from memory.

TLDR: I believe that Trump will win, because of four aspects of the election that lean in his favor: Scandals, Voter Turnout, Party Unity, and Polling Trends.

Let's start with Party Unity.

Party Unity

Conventional wisdom throughout much of the primaries stated that the Republican Party was fractured and splintered, while the Democratic Party (early on) was more or less united behind Clinton. That wasn't really true then, and it's especially not true now. As I see it:

The Republican Party is solidly behind Trump BUT the Democratic Party is not united behind Clinton.

Now, on it's face, that sentence might seem ridiculous. You've had a Republican primary with over a dozen candidates. Not to mention numerous high-profile Republicans denouncing Trump, and, in some cases, withdraw their endorsements. Whereas virtually all high-profile Democrats, including Bernie Sanders himself, have thrown their lot behind Hillary Clinton. BUT, that dosen't matter. Why you ask?

Another very important detial: Party representatives and their constituents are not analogous. Just because party elites throw their support behinds someone, doesn't mean the actual Republican or Democratic base of voters will do the same.

Most Republicans strongly support Trump. Polls consistently indicate that a solid majority  stand by him and view him favorably. He won by overwhelming margins in both many states contests and debates during the primary. Many, Americans, including the Republican Base, despise the role of money in politics. A major advantage in Trump's favor is that he portrays himself as an out to this system, the "anti-establishment" candidate, as some would say. 

Now, unlike in the Republican Party, there are clear schisms and fractures in terms of support for the nominee. One YouGov poll found that only 51% of Sanders supporters planned to vote for Clinton come November. Many millennials especially, view HRC in poor terms.  Progressives have long detested Hillary Clinton's hawkish record on foreign policy, closeness with financial elites, and flip flopping

When Trump has much stronger Party Unity than Clinton, it means his supporters are far more likely to turn out in high numbers which---oh!--leads into the next point!

Voter Turnout

Generally, when turnout is low, Republicans have the advantage, and when turnout is high, Democrats have the advantage. This is because low turnout usually means that older voters, which tend to lean Republican make up the majority of those voting, while high turnout means that many minorities and younger voters yield the opposite effect for Democrats. 

Much of a fuss has been made about Hillary Clinton's ground organization campaign, and how it dwarfs Donald Trump's. Here's the thing, that too, does not matter. 

The majority of Trump supporters are much older than your average millennial (DUH DOY). So GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts are not nearly as important, since older voters have voted in many elections prior, thus, they likely already are aware all logistical nonsense involved.. Furthermore, Trump supporters tend to be much more enthusiastic about their candidate than Clinton supporters.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party registration rosters are filled with millennials, who's association with the party began and ended with Bernie Sanders' campaign. Don't be fooled by amount of doors knocked, or registered Democrats called. GOTV efforts only work if you're helping people who actually want to vote for your candidate, to do so. If much of your base (in this case, the Democratic Party) is splintered, organization is far less important because turnout will still likely be low.

That's not to say there's not a significant portion of the Democratic Party that strongly supported Clinton during the primary, and continue to now. But that faction isn't nearly enough to outnumber the base of the Republican Party, as well as Sanders' supporters which abstain, or in a small minority of cases, vote for Trump. Polls also tend to show that the amount of supporters

Polling Trends

For those following Real Clear Politics' Trump v. Clinton average, there's been a very odd phenomenon that follows a predictable pattern. Basically, HRC and Trump start off at a chasm, with HRC leading by as much as 10+, then over the course of about a month, they converge to more or less even, then something will happen to Trump and the chasm will begin again, but after another month, they will converge. 

Of all the twists and turns in this election, one thing remains constant, when it's all said and done, Trump and Clinton end up in dead heat.

Now, you might counter me by saying that, while the trend does fluctuate, recent polls do still favor Clinton, but here's the thing: Those polls may very well be a result of something called "Herding", wherein pollsters change their methodology to preclude the possibility of their polls being statistical outliers. If you think I'm just being conspiratorial, don't! Nate Silver himself suspects the same thing

As you can see, most polls fall within a pretty strict range of +2 to +4 in favor of HRC. Nate Silver had written that this is probably somewhat a result of "herding". Especially in an election of this magnitude, nobody wants to be the outlier. As Nate Silver again put it this could be "a case of the blind leading the blind". 

Now, there are two polls that don't share this trend, the IBD/TIPP and the LA Times/USC tracking polls (Note: Nate Silver adjusts polls with a "trendline" so these aren't he except numbers). In both instances, these polls have Trump ahead by a view points. T

Other polls, (which Nate Silver alluded to in this tweet) might be victim to something called :herding

There's something very special about those two polls, not only were they among the most accurate in 2012, they are both tracking polls. Whereas most other polls take a sample once, ask them questions, and then likely never touch the same sample again, tracking polls stick with the same sample for the duration of the election. Though the LA Times/USC poll does continuously add new members to its sample as the election goes on.

So why is that important? Well if you closely study the RCP graph you saw earlier, you start to notice that the "gulfs" in which HRC lead Trump overwhelmingly came generally at the same time he has a major media gaffe like the "Obama Founded ISIS" thing in August. When that happens, his poll numbers drop off, but curiously, that does not happen in the tracking polls.

Of course, this can mean many things, but my take is that people tend to be far less willing to say they'd vote for Trump immediately following a major incident in the media, which is completely natural behavior for any candidate. Since tracking polls foster a stronger relationship between the pollster and those polled over the course of the election, the tracking polls are likely far less susceptible to those swings in support than most other polls are. 

So, it's very possible that Trump and HRC are much closer in the polling than many might believe, and when the polls are close, who wins? The candidate with the higher turnout, due to stronger party unity, Speaking of unity......

Scandals

Remember the saying, "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link!". That's never been more pertinent to the point of how scandals affect party unity. Fundamentally, scandals affect the Republican base far less than they affect the Democratic Party base, why is that?

American trust in the media has reached a historic low, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, even a majority of Democrats believe that media is biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. 

When Donald Trump is seen as the anti-establishment candidate, its much more likely that scandals will slide off of him because most people see the media as inherently biased anyway. So people in general not just the Republican base, are less likely to take as seriously negative coverage on Donald Trump. 

On the other hand, the scandals which affect Hillary Clinton, such as potential corruption through the Clinton foundation, Wikileaks, DNC collusion, leaked "basement dwellers" comment, and email investigations, only stoke the schism that exists between Sanders' supporters and loyalist Democrats. Since party unity is already weak, and because even most Democrats believe mainstream media to be biased in favor of Clinton, negative coverage and new revelations are much more impact. Especially to former Sanders' supporters that never strongly supported Clinton to begin with. 

Conclusion

To tie everything together, there is a schism in the Democratic Party, of the like which does not exist in the Republican Party. While most Republicans strongly back Trump, and have some guarantee of high turnout because older voters tend to vote consistently, those that need to turn out in high numbers for HRC to win, namely millennials, will likely not turn out in high numbers. Nor will most former Sanders' supporters generally.

Since unity in the Democratic Party is weak to begin with, scandals, especially scandals that involve corruption, will further the schism between loyalist democrats and former Sanders' supporters.

The polling trends tend to favor a convergence between Trump and Hillary, and generally, when two candidates are tied, whoever has the more passionate supporters (in this case, Donald Trump) will win. 

Democrats, you should've nominated Bernie!

Misleading Reports: Hillary Clinton Has Not Won the Nomination

Last night, Associated Press had reported that Hillary Clinton reached the 2,383 delegates required to automatically become the Democratic nominee. Networks ranging from The New York Times to CNN to even the BBC parroted the claim.

However, it is not actually the case that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. As 571 of her supposed 2,383 delegates are Super-Delegates, who, unlike pledged delegates, do not vote until the Democratic Convention of July 25-28th. 

With that said, the real delegate count of pledged delegates is the following:

Hillary Clinton: 1812
Bernie Sanders: 1521

So it's about 571 super-delegates, which may switch their support at any time, as they have in the past, with now president Barack Obama in 2008, who have been artificially added to the delegate count as if they were pledged delegates.

It goes without saying that it is a steep battle for Bernie Sanders to achieve the nomination, but it is a blatant falsehood to state that Hillary Clinton has won the nomination when super-delegates have not even voted. If you are anybody in the seven states voting today, do not think that your vote does not count, Hillary Clinton has not won the nomination.

Analyzing the "Bomber Bernie" Meme - Part 1

T

The image you see above you is an anti-Bernie meme, which aims to imply that Bernie Sanders was/is not so different than Hillary Clinton in his foreign policy, especially regarding the Iraq War vote. "I voted for the Iraq War! True, except you voted for the bills that set it up."

There are three major errors of logic within this bill that may not be obvious at first glance, that is: The meme conflates bills which issue statements calling for a change in regime without actually supporting  military action. The meme misleads the reader as to the nature of "defense appropriations" bills, and that the meme includes other bills which have nothing to do with Iraq (which I will get to in "part 2").

First, lets quickly note the bills listed here which have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, either occurring before the Iraq War or having to do with an entirely separate conflict, they are: the Bosnia Troop Deployment Resolution, Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, Foreign Operations FY98 Appopriations, 1999 Military Construction/Assistance,  Extending the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, Missle Defense System in Europe, Military construction FY99 appropriation, 2009 Missle Defense System of Europe, S. Res 85 regarding the "no-fly zone" on Libya, and the U.S Statment of Support for Israel.

With those bills out of the way, lets attack one of the primary fallacies that this photo implicates, that having to do with "defense & military appropriations"

First off, the first defense appropriations bill cited, "HR 4059 - Military Construction FY99 Appropriations " was filed in 1998 several years before the Iraq War in 2001. In addition, like many of the bills with similar names mentioned in this graphic, defense appropriations just means general funding for the military. Take the terms of the Emergency Defense Spending HR 2004:

 "Appropriates funds for FY 2005 for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the defense agencies, the reserve components, and the Army and Air National Guards. Appropriates funds for: (1) the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account; (2) the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; (3) environmental restoration for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide; (4) environmental restoration at formerly used defense sites; (5) overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid; and (6) former Soviet Union threat reduction."

Similar terms are used in the HR 2863 - Defense Department FY 2006 Appropriations, which this graphic says was "funding for Iraq and Afghanistan"

- Appropriates funds for FY2006 for operation and maintenance (O&M) for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the defense agencies, the reserve components, and the Army and Air National Guard. Appropriates funds for: (1) the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; (2) environmental restoration for the Army, Navy, Air Force, defense-wide, and at formerly used defense sites; (3) overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid; and (4) former Soviet Union threat reduction.

HR 563 is actually a typo for a bill named HR 5631 (thank you brother-from-another-mother for pointing this out), which as we can see by glancing at it's terms, follows similar language to the HR 4613 Emergency Defense Spending bill we just covered:

Title II: Operation and Maintenance - Appropriates funds for FY2007 for operation and maintenance (O&M) for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the defense agencies, the reserve components, and the Army and Air National Guard. Appropriates funds for: (1) the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; (2) overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid; and (3) former Soviet Union threat reduction.

Title III: Procurement - Appropriates funds for FY2007 for procurement by the Armed Forces of aircraft, missiles, weapons, tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, shipbuilding and conversion, and other procurement. Appropriates funds for: (1) defense-wide procurement; (2) National Guard and reserve equipment; and (3) certain procurement under the Defense Production Act of 1950.

 Finally, with  HR 1585 National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, which the graphic claims gave "funding for Iraq and Afghanistan". The bill text is extremely long, but does contain a section on Iraq and Afghanistan, the following are the bills primary enactments as well as the specific section on Iraq and Afghanistan:

(Sec. 101) Authorizes appropriations for FY2008 for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and Air Force for aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, shipbuilding and conversion, the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, and other procurement.

(Sec. 104) Authorizes appropriations for FY2008 for: (1) defense-wide procurement; and (2) National Guard and reserve equipment.

And...

 (Sec. 1221) Amends the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 to extend the responsibilities of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction to include authority over all reconstruction funding provided, regardless of its source or fiscal year availability. Terminates the Office of the Special Inspector General 180 days after the balance of funds appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq is less than $250 million.

Here the graphic is misleading, funding for the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan is not the same as funding for reconstruction (building back up the Iraq army and other facets of government). Furthermore, the primary focus of the bill is "defense wide procurement" in other words, simply funding the military.

Again, to reiterate, within all of the "defense appropriation" bills, is the fact that "defense appropriation" simply means general funding for the military. The crucial term in nearly all of these bills is defense wide procurement, that means funding which spans the entirety of the massive Department of Defense, not funding specifically for the Iraq War.

Here, the "Bomber Bernie" meme posits an absurd standard; if you voted against the Iraq War, but voted to fund the military, you didn't really mean it. You're in no place to call Hillary a hawk if you're pro-funding the armed forces!  For a senator to not vote in favor of some military spending is ludicrous, because although the United States military has grown to what is truly an unruly size, billions of dollars must still be allocated to keep the hundreds of thousands of military employees paid, as well as to maintain equipment and supplies for all five branches of the U.S military.

Now, to close out, lets look lastly on the the Iraqi Liberation Act as an example of bills listed here that demand change, but do not actually authorize military force The Iraqi Liberation Act (HR 4655), here its the terms:

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

The graphic states that "This was cited in HJ res 114 (Iraq War bill) as prior approval to invade Iraq" Yet, here is the crucial omission: While the bill does authorize "defense articles and services and military education education and training" it does not propose any means of actual military force. It is not at all a contradiction to seek the change of a government and not support a massive, illegal invasion of another country as a means of doing so. While the bill may have been flaunted as a justification, that does not mean any justification existed.

Since this blog post has already gotten quite long, I am closing this off as "Part 1". I hope to create a "Part 2" within the next few days or week if possible, going into detail regarding the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) as well as the portions of the graphic I had listed at the beginning, which do not have anything to do with Iraq, but are still significant in general. Stay tuned.

I hope for now though, the credibility of this meme, and others like it, are severely damaged. As not only are many of the graphic's insinuations misleading, some of the bills, as I've pointed out, are either incorrectly named or don't even exist.

(Also, shout out to my brother from another mother who brought this up at first, you know who you are!)