Showing posts with label 2016 elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016 elections. Show all posts

Saturday, December 2, 2017

Swing States

A series of maps to illustrate swing states, defined as states which have not voted for the same party for the preceding 4 Presidential elections.

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Swing States, 2016


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Swing States, 2012


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Swing States, 2008

Another way to look at it, if you gradually turn states into swing states the further back you go:


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

2016 results


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Since 2012


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Since 2008


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Since 2004


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Since 2000 (repeat)


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Since 1996


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Since 1992


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Since 1988


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Since 1984 and 1980


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Since 1976


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Since 1972 and 1968


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Since 1964

1964 was the first election where DC was allowed to vote, so every state has voted for both parties except for DC over the last 50 years.

If I were hired by the DNC to ensure Trump is a one term president, I would ensure to put resources everywhere I can. The first step is to fight against voter discrimination laws which should have started several years ago. It doesn't matter if you are polling 10 points ahead of the other major party if your voters cannot vote for you.

While fighting those laws in the courts and ensuring people have the right to vote, we need to also fight gerrymandering. If the Supreme Court rules that partisan gerrymandering is illegal than there will be many more cases to ensure fair districting. This will mean that we will have many more competitive districts.

Getting a great candidate in 2020, such as Kamala Harris, would help a lot to win the Presidency, and ending the super-delegates to have the primary done with a straight popular vote would be a very easy way to increase legitimacy of the Democratic Nominee. That wouldn't take any laws to change, only some rules. It would also improve the image of the Democratic Party in the eyes of Millennials. If the primary is open and ranked then we will have the best candidate possible with no question of their legitimacy.

That will be enough to win the 2020 election. Campaign everywhere and have the first national primary in America's history. Supporting local candidates, and have every Presidential rally be with a local politician to get them name recognition will help the Democratic Party more accurately match its vote share in its success.

In the long run, implementing ranked voting and ideally ending the electoral college are the only ways I know of to make a truly fair election system where voters have the ability to kick out members of congress and legislatures who don't speak for them. After that, there will be no single Democratic Party because it will split into multiple parties at various levels of liberalism which will be good for America and voters by getting more viewpoints into the national debate.

The best we can do in 2018 is get good strong candidates nationwide running for every single seat in every legislature and support them so they can win.

I know this is a big change and a big dream, but that's the only way this crazy world has ever improved. Fight for the ideal system and get as much as you can. Hopefully someone at the DNC will read this.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Women in Washington State Politics

Ok, so I am doing some research right now on the 2016 legislative election in Washington. It's been my research forcus for two days now. There were 302 candidates for all legislative races in 2016, 99 (32%) of which were women, 203 (67%) of which were men. Of these candidates 85 women continued to the general election, or 85.9% of all candidates while only 67.5% of men continued. In the general election female candidates won 51% of all their races and men won 59% of all races (due to there being f-f and m-m races). This further points out that being female does not hurt your chances of winning, in fact with a 20% lead on men in the primaries it might actually improve your chances, with a 6% gain in the percentage of women in the general election versus the primary. The problem lies in the field of candidates and getting women to file to run for public office. I have as many ideas in how to fix that problem as I do in how to get more women studying economics, finance, computer science, and other male dominated professions, none. Merely implementing a quota won't get individuals to file their candidacy.

Primary data

Gender Candidate Candidate Continue Continue Percent continue
Female 99 32.8% 84 38.0% 84.8%
Male 203 67.2% 137 62.0% 67.5%

General Election data:

Gender Candidates Candidates Positions Positions Percent won
Female 84 38% 44 35% 52%
Male 137 62% 80 65% 58%

Friday, November 11, 2016

2016 Recap and 2020 cycle

That was a terrible election. This is the second time in my life where the electoral college has not selected the winner of the popular vote, and this time the consequences could be dire. I have already talked about the Orange Bag and how he is a despicable human being, and I fear for my country's future. His economic policies are going to ruin us if they are implemented and his social policies will destroy our soul.

Locally, Washington State was a mixed bag. Washington wasn't very good defeating the carbon tax (which I poured my heart, mind, and soul into) and the state finance initiative, but we did get paid sick leave, and most importantly the Governorship and both houses of the Legislature will be held by Democrats. Kim Wyman won reelection after rigging the election against the carbon tax however, she has disgraced the office of the Secretary of State with the inaccurate information she has published in the voter's pamphlet. The rest of State executive positions (except treasurer which had a massive spoiler effect in the primary) have gone to the Democrats. We hopefully will be able to keep many of the protections the Orange Bag is about to eliminate here in Washington, but there are some things, like marijuana, which are going to become illegal again very soon.

When we look at the Rust Belt however, we see a fascinating trend in the exit polls. Comparing the results in 2016 and 2012 in Michigan we see a 6% boost for the Orange Bag from white men, and interestingly a 4% boost for the Orange Bag among black men. This boost was enough to give him the Presidency, and the only theory I have on how the Orange Bag had been able to get more votes from African American men than Mitt Romney did in 2012 is through deliberate voter discrimination. Providing more places to vote per capita in white conservative areas as opposed to minority liberal areas is vote rigging. There is no other word for it. Among white voters, their voting for third parties was enough to tip Michigan over the edge. The majority of white voters (regardless of gender, as always) voted for the Republican both times.

In Pennsylvania we see a decreases in the diversity of voters this year. White voters jumped 3%, which was enough to swing the election. We also saw the same number of Orange Bag voters but a reduction of 2% of white voters due to third parties. People with only a high school education switched from 60% in favor to Obama to only 43% in favor of Clinton. Whites with no degree were the only demographic the Orange Bag won when you consider both education and race together. This election was swung a great deal due to a decrease in diversity of voters.

In Wisconsin the number of white vs. non-white voters stayed the same as it was in 2012 with 86% of the electorate being white. White support for the Orange Bag was 2% higher than it was for Mitt Romney and Clinton was 6% lower than Obama (4% increase for third parties) which is way more than enough to swing the election. Minorities voted about the same as they did in 2012. We see the swing in support from education where people with only high school degrees shifted their support from Obama (with 55% of the demographic) to Orange Bag who won 54% of the demographic.

If just half of Jill Stein voters had voted for Hillary Clinton in swing states Tuesday would have been a very different day. Their ideological purity has hurt our country far more than a vote for Clinton. This is the the simplest way to explain the gap between the number of votes Clinton won as opposed to Obama. The reach by third parties also significantly hurt Clinton this year, while the Orange Bag is winning about the same number of voters Romney won in 2012, but Clinton saw a significant decrease. The latest count on Google with 99% of precincts reporting is that 126,061,003 people voted in this Presidential election versus 129,085,410 people voting in 2012. this predicts about a 2% decrease in the number of people of voting, way more than the margin between the two candidates. A 6 million person decrease in the vote for Clinton vs. Obama, in a country which has grown by 4 million people is a gigantic amount in such a close election. Also, Michigan and Pennsylvania haven't voted Republican since 1988, and Wisconsin has been a reliable Democratic state since 1984. With such a record it can be understood why Clinton did not spend so much time there, preferring Ohio and Florida to these other states. This demonstrates that every vote counts. Other states which have voted for the Democrat since 1988 and voted for Bush in that year include Vermont, New Jersey, Maine, Maryland, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, and even California. The only states which could have been considered safer than Wisconsin are DC (which has always voted Democrat) and Minnesota (which is extremely similar to Wisconsin in demographics). These were about as safe states as you can get! The Orange Bag campaigned heavily in these states which was extremely intelligent of him and by doing so won the Electoral College. These three states also had enough third party votes to spoil the election for Clinton which is a two pronged attack on Hillary Clinton which has doomed us.

Another way the election could have been different was for Democrats to reach out to White people with less than a college degree who overwhelmingly supported the Orange Bag this year. That is where this election swung. In 2018 and 2020 we are going to have to see Democrats supporting policies which maintains their hold on highly educated individuals (like myself) and also appeal to people without a lot of education. Hard decisions are going to have to be made. Another path to victory which will be more difficult is to have more access to voting which would  boost turnout of minorities, who are only going to grow in importance over the next few years. If Democrats have policies which appeal to Hispanics more than the lead can grow from 66% to 70% which is enough to win nationwide in these key states. The appeal to younger voters is going to help Democrats naturally over the next few years as our demographic ages. The key is for people in their 20s to not despair given how hard the next 4 years are going to be and vote in 2018 and 2020 so that we can rebuild what is about to be destroyed once we regain the Presidency in 2021.

The other big issues is Millenials didn't turn out to vote. I am ashamed of my generation and our apathy has hurt us more than any other generation. We need to start investing over the next 4 years and if our economy does as well as is likely to do under the Orange Bag as with other Republicans over the last 50 years then we just royally screwed ourselves and will suffer the effects for the rest of our lives. Clinton had all the policies that we wanted, maybe not exactly as Bernie Sanders proposed, but the same outcomes as his policies would do. People in my generation not voting was immature, stupid, mean, and shameful. We will need to turnout in the midterms up and down the ballot and in 2020 to kick out this racist shit bag.

So, the plan for the next four years is to run candidates in every congressional and legislative district in 2018 to try to take back as many legislatures and seats in the House as we can. If the Orange Bag does what he says he is going to do and our economy tanks as a result it will be easier to do so despite the gerrymandering. Democrats need to do some soul searching and admit that moving to the center has not worked as they planned. By becoming more solidly socially liberal and expanding the coalition to include as many Hispanic voters as possible the party will be unstoppable. The issue that will work best is having a strong education plan, working to expand access to jobs, and access to health care will help Hispanic voters significantly and attract them to the party. These are the issues they care about. It will also make Millenial voters even more solidly Democratic. Working to expand access to retirement options and cracking down on abuse as opposed to making it hard for people to enter to the financial advising industry will help attract working class people. The current approach to punishing newcomers to finance has not worked well and people still are locked into plans which give terrible returns. These can be stopped by making it illegal to be locked into a retirement plan and giving people the option to switch plans when their portfolio is not working for them. This type of a platform with these four major planks will attract people back to the Democratic Party. We will need a candidate who has a record of fighting for these issues.

Bernie Sanders is currently the most popular politician in America and he would be an excellent choice for getting the Presidency back. He has already promised to not sacrifice American values to the Orange Bag which will be extremely popular with a majority of Americans and get people out to vote. Elizabeth Warren is another candidate who I have written about for years who would be a fantastic president. Electing a moderate did not work, though electing a progressive in 2008 did. It is clear to me the Democratic Party needs to move to the left in order to embolden my generation and have a future. These are the candidates currently with the most potential and national stage presence. Jay Inslee of my home state (Washington) is currently the most liberal governor in the country, is strong on race relations, education, and women's rights, and would make a fine President. Governor Kate Brown of Oregon is another fantastic choice for President.

Over the next 4 years more governors will appear, and hopefully a gubernatorial landslide in 2018 (when most governors will elected) will give us a large batch of excellent candidates to choose from. If the Orange Bag does particularly badly this will be easy to do. Recruiting local leaders to run for public office at the city, county, and state level needs to be the top priority of the Democratic Party and it needs to embrace its progressive wing as soon as it can in order to survive.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Democratic Strategy

I am currently working for Washington CAN, the oldest progressive non-profit in Washington State. We are getting out the vote in two districts currently, Washington State Legislative districts 30 and 44. If we succeed in flipping these two districts we could flip the entire Washington State House of Representatives which would is an essential step forward in getting progress in our state on important issues such as education, health care, and infrastructure which we all rely on.

The current state of United States legislatures is very poor. Democrats control only 7 state governments in full. Republicans control 23. 4 states have Democratic legislatures with a Republican governor, 11 states have democratic governors without control of the state legislatures. This means that Democrats are missing a pipeline of new talent for leading our country, will be unable to get constitutional amendments passed, and the Republicans have 31 out of the currently required 34 state legislatures to get through constitutional amendments. Given the shifting demographics of the United States, there is a lot of work that we can do right now to regain state legislatures to the point where major goals, such as Medicaid expansion, high quality infrastructure and other vital issues can be achieved. We will not get these issues passed however until our legislatures are made of people who actually care about the well being of the people, and given the state of the Republican party, that means they have to be Democrats.

A big cause of why state legislatures are overwhelmingly Republican is because of gerrymandering. State legislatures draw the boundaries for themselves in most states, and for Congress. The Democratic party needs to bring forward state initiatives in states across the country where gerrymandering has taken hold to use the single-split line method, and ideally ranked voting with multiple winners per race in order to make it so state legislatures more accurately represent the wishes of the American people. This will make it so Republicans will lose control across the country.

In order to make this happen, we have 4 easy pick ups this year with split legislatures. Democrats could easily pick up the state legislatures in Washington, Maine, Colorado, Kentucky, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, and New Mexico. Washington and Colorado only need the Democrats to pick up two seats in order to control the state. In New Mexico Democrats only need 4 more out of 70 seats. This would bring them to fully control 10 state governments, and then in 2018 pick up 4 more governorships to control 14 state governments around the country, with the Republicans still at 23 state governments and 31 legislatures.

Once we end the split governments, the states which need to be targeted next are Nevada, Montana, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. All of these states have less than a 20% split Democratic to Republican, and are good targets for Democrats to reclaim more governments. This will put Democrats at controlling 18 state governments, bringing Republicans down to 21 state governments and 27 state legislatures. Given their closeness to tipping, we cannot let them slip.

We also need to reclaim 6 governorships where Democrats control the state legislature, Maine, New Mexico, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Massachusetts.


Status (states) States (seats needed)
Hold governorship, hold legislature (7) Hawaii, Rhode Island, California, Delaware, Oregon, Vermont, Connecticut
Pick up governorship, hold legislature (4) Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts
Pick up one house, retain governor (4) New York (9), Colorado (2), Washington (1), Minnesota (7)
Pick up one house, pick up governor (4) New Mexico (2), Maine (6), Iowa (8), Kentucky (9)
Pick up legislature, retain governor (3) Montana (7), Pennsylvania (25), New Hampshire (42),
Pick up legislature and governor (2) Nevada (7), Arizona (11)
This will give democrats control of 24 state governments by picking up 10 governorships and 142 seats in state legislatures (out of 7383 in total). This is doable.

Once Democrats focus and get out the vote in these 24 state governments, the remaining states we will need to focus on are Michigan, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio. These 5 Republican controlled governments frequently vote for the Democratic President and elect Democratic Senators. This will give Democrats a majority of state governments. What this will mean for working families is more mass transit, better infrastructure, improved schools, and expanded access to Medicaid. If the Progressive wing of the party gains influence it will hopefully mean a more progressive tax code and more efficient government programs.

The 5 remaining stretch states which will give Democrats the 34 governments needed to approve constitutional amendments and dominate the country are Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisiana because they have Democratic governors which will give Democrats 33 state governments. The one final state which Democrats would have the ability to gain will probably be Texas given massive demographic shifts over the next decade which will bring Texas into play by 2020. Georgia as well could be in play within a decade from demographic changes which is an extra bonus for the Democrats. Given the stubbornness of people who support Donald Trump, I expect at least another ten years of the alt-right having a significant impact on the Republican party. This is the opportunity of a generation for the Democrats to dominate the US and make significant changes beyond Obamacare to improve equality and opportunity for everybody.

Picking up another 27 state governments will be a monumental shift in American history. Of course state and county parties are going to need to be well organized to get great leaders running at all levels of government, but the national party should spend its resources to get real gains as soon as possible. Here is a rough schedule on how the National Democratic Party should focus on regaining state governments.

In 2016-2018 we need to focus on the states where we already control at least one house while retaining the 7 states we control. We could gain 12 state governments in the next two years, bringing us to 19 state governments by the time we get to the 2020 election.

In 2020-2022 we need to focus on the three states where we control the governorships (on top of the State Parties working hard over the next 4 years) which will bring us up to controlling 22 state governments in total.

In 2024-2026 we need to start to pick up the next 5 states I mentioned (if we haven't gotten them already) and whatever states in the preceding two lists we haven't managed to get.

Finally in 2028-2030 we could pick up the remaining 5 states to gain control of a supermajority of state governments across the country.

A lot can happen in 14 years of course, and it is possible Democrats could make these gains before 2030. I do believe however we should focus as much energy as possible on these local races to gain state governments. This is the only way we are going to be able to get progress on issues which improve the lives of all Americans which the Republicans have blocked for decades.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Time to work down the ballot

Trump with his latest move has made his final mistake. He has alienated people of every minority over the last year, Hispanics, Muslims, African Americans, and with his latest train of disgusting degrading remarks he is now losing the support of the Republican Party, with some calling for him to withdraw from the race.

What is striking about this is how none of these types of comments are new for Trump to say on cable news. What is different this time is how he is not targeting a racial group but all women in the world. The modern Republican Party endorsed Trump through all of his racist comments and openness to his bigotry over the last year. They have shown they do not care about Black Lives, Muslims, Hispanics, Native Americans, or anyone who is not white to be honest. Their unwillingness to stand for all Americans and support of a blatantly racist candidate makes them the most despicable party in this country over the last 150 years.

Trump is going to lose. He is a racist rapist who doesn't deserve any time on the news. Only the Democratic Party has shown that it is willing to at the bare minimum to oppose people like Donald Trump and vote for things like the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Granted, the Democratic Party has a lot of room to improve and need to be better about passing legislation with their important pieces intact, in cases including the Affordable Care Act, and voting against legislation which is opposed to American principles, including the PATRIOT ACT. But these are small issues compared to the amount that Donald Trump has already destroyed our civil discourse and wants to move our country backwards. The Republican Party supports him so I must assume this means they support his policies as well.

We need to vote down the ballot and kick out as many Republicans as possible. We need to elect strong progressives in local, state, and Federal offices this year if we are to move our country forward. The President gets all of the headlines, but Congress as a body is just as powerful as she is. Most Presidents in history are former Senators or Governors (Clinton, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and Roosevelt all were either a Senator or Governor before becoming President) meaning the 46th President is already in office somewhere. Senators and Governors usually are State Legislators when they are elected to Federal Office for the first time, and those individuals grow their campaigns originally through being leaders in their local communities years before they run for office.

The President who will be elected in 2028 is currently in their 30s right now somewhere in the country. This individual is possibly running for a state legislature seat right now in some state in this country. This individual is starting their political career which will catapult them to the Presidency this year only if people get out to vote. Elections down the ballot matter because a future President is running for a legislative seat this year and the only way they are going to lead the United States as President is if they get elected in a month. Do you want that individual to be a progressive fighting for the Bill of Rights and opportunity, or yet another corporate tool who believes that unlimited money in elections is a good thing and that internet surveillance works? (hint: Generals in the military say it doesn't) The only way we are going to be able to secure our future is if we vote for our local races this year all the way down to that boring county commissioner position, which is actually a very important role for determining land use and many other services we rely on everyday. Great leaders in American history start at the bottom, as community organizers gathering petition signatures as they move up the food chain. We get the leaders we deserve by who we elect into those positions.

Please fill out your ballot. Your county needs you.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

The General Election has begun

So, the Sanders revolution has ended. Clinton has won the nomination, and I am now seeing countless Sanders supporters I know claiming they will "never vote for Clinton" "Vote for Stein" and other rubbish.

For me, I originally wanted a Warren/Feingold dream team ticket. I wrote about this dream way back in 2013. I still wish Warren had run and know that if she had that she would have won the Presidency in a landslide by gathering all of Sanders supporters and a large number of Clinton supporters. However, this did not happen obviously so we have to stick to what is available at the moment.

When it comes to criminal records, Clinton has never been indicted once in her life. Even the Senate committee on Benghazi which is composed of Republicans whose entire purpose is to discredit Clinton and send her to jail to give Republicans the nomination to Donald Trump is unable to get any dirt on Clinton to the point where she can be indicted. When it comes to criminality, no one has ever been able to prove that she has ever committed a crime.

When it comes to policy, Clinton comes out to be about the same as Obama. The political compass for 2008 puts her as slightly more capitalist than Obama and the same level for social issues. In 2016 she has moved more right in both directions than she was in 2008, and Sanders is about the same point when it comes to social policy as she was in 2008. Clinton will probably drift slightly further to the right in the general election because of the median voter theorem, but as president I do not expect any significant social policy changes under her. Economically, she is going to probably whittle away our financial regulation but besides that I do not expect any other major reforms. Trump, on the other hand has talked about significantly eliminating a lot of civil rights laws and incredible discrimination against Muslims and Hispanics. This is what the election comes down to. Economically we are screwed either way, but with Trump there is little doubt we are going to quickly move towards a fascist state, and given the Democrats willingness to vote for the PATRIOT ACT without thinking in 2001 I don't think there will be anyone to stop Trump from truly destroying the United States. This will not happen under a Clinton presidency. She is definitely a hack for corrupt bankers, but she is no fascist. For this reason I prefer Clinton over Trump and will not waste my vote voting for Jill Stein until the minor parties start to run candidates and get elected in local offices.

Clinton is far to the right of President Lyndon Johnson, but she is no Hitler. Trump on the other hand talking about banning Muslims from the US, and policies against Hispanics is racist to the core. I do see Trump as a Fascist in his economic views, social views, and foreign policy and so out of respect to the millions who have died and lived under Fascist governments (including some of my favorite relatives) I will call him what he is. My family lived under Nazi Germany and I have studied the Third Reich as a way to understand my history and understand how to avoid Fascism at all costs. (if you want to understand the Third Reich, read Hannah Arendt) There is no overarching moral issue where I see a divergence between Trump and Hitler (find "Jew", replace "Muslim") so out of respect for those we have lost I call Trump a Fascist. I will write a longer comparative post later.

Also, the majority of African Americans voted for Clinton even after all of the welfare reforms done under the first Clinton Presidency. They know what is best for them ultimately and if they feel that they will be better off under a Clinton Presidency it doesn't matter how long you or I have been involved in organizations fighting racism, it is inappropriate to deny the voices of millions of people.

Please do not waste your vote and vote for Clinton this November. If you want to get real change going, you need to get involved in your local politics, demand ranked voting, and help our country get a better election system.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

2016 election, late February 2016

It is the end of February and the current status is that Hillary Clinton is picking up most members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and is currently leading the Presidential election by far. She is likely to beat Donald Trump in the general election under almost any probable outcome.

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
So the big question now is that who will be Clinton's running mate? My personal favorite would be Bernie Sanders actually. It would help win over a lot of current Bernie Sanders supporters, and if he accepted the nomination would all but guarantee a victory. The biggest advantage to this is that campaigning together Sanders could rile up his crowds, all but guaranteeing them supporting the ticket, and Clinton will fulfill the lifelong dream of many feminists of having a woman as president (as I have seen far too often on-line). Sanders will help Clinton from drifting too far right on many social issues as her Vice President, and Clinton will hopefully help make sure their economic policies have a chance that people will vote for them. This is the best possible ticket at this point in time, it will keep the Executive Office from drifting too far right (like happened with Clinton's husband) and make sure the policies have a chance of actually passing Congress with Sanders as VP. While I wish for a more inspiring team overall, as I wrote about several months ago, and it is by no means a dream ticket, I think this is the best possible ticket at this point in time. I see it as a choice between someone who is hyper idealistic who doesn't consult advisors and doesn't propose anything with a chance in hell of passing, and someone who is too quick to run to center trying to appeal to as many people as possible. As a team together hopefully they will balance each other out like the Earth and Moon.

I will not be voting in the primary this year, but I will be voting for the Democratic Nominee in the General Election no matter who wins.

Thursday, December 31, 2015

2016 Presidential election Prediction

The presidential election is starting in one month on February 1st in Iowa for both major parties, and my predictions are as follows:

Hillary Clinton will sweep Iowa given her more moderate positions, and New Hampshire is a tossup between Sanders and Clinton. If Clinton succeeds in winning New Hampshire, then given her lead in the hidden primary for super delegates and amount of money raised already then she will sweep the nomination quickly. If Sanders wins in New Hampshire he will have an uphill battle to fight in most other states outside of New England, and Clinton will still probably get the nomination. Even if Sanders pulls off a miracle and gets more votes than Clinton by a small margin he still will lose the super delegate vote and she will get the nomination. It is unusually easy to predict this year's election.

The Republican field is more challenging to predict, Marco Rubio is currently leading the betting pool odds out of all Republicans, which tends to be the most accurate way to predict the winner of the primary. The biggest issue right now is the vast number of candidates and no ranked voting to tell what people's true preferences are after candidates drop out. I expect we will see most candidates drop out fairly quickly and then we will see Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson left in the race. Bush and Christie supporters are closely aligned and they will fall behind Marco Rubio since he has more experience and is slightly more moderate than Ted Cruz, giving the Republicans a bigger advantage in the general election. Rubio will play into Republican fears of drugs which is one of the few wedge issues between the two, and his support of Social Security is going to win him a lot of older conservative votes in a match between the two. He is also better than Bush for most Republicans because he opposes a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants which will appease older white conservatives again. Donald Trump vs. Marco Rubio is going to be the major factor in the later primaries, and as less ideological Republicans come into the play Donald Trump is not going to see much more support than he already has given how he is more extreme than the other Republican Candidates.

When it comes to the General Election it will be Marco Rubio vs. Hillary Clinton. The states which are most contested are still North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. The states which lean more towards Clinton are Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada. (in order) The only other state which could start to swing is Texas given its growing Hispanic population, Texas could start to be a swing state if the Democrats turn out the vote in Hispanic communities, but this all depends on strategy. It will be a full swing state in 2020. I do not think running Marco Rubio is going to succeed in pulling in many Hispanic voters because of his policy positions.

For Vice Presidential candidates, Clinton has a lot of options, Sanders is a possibility depending on how he talks about her in the election, Russ Feingold would be a wonderful choice, Julian or Raul Castro are amazing people and would help turn out Hispanic voters (particularly in Texas), among other picks.

Among Republicans, Rubio could pick Cruz given their ideological similarities, Jeb Bush for his connections,

The Democrats start with 237 electoral college votes not including swing states, and Republicans start with 191 (not including the 9 states which are swing states). Nevada and Colorado are seeing a growing Hispanic population and they will vote Democratic bringing the Democrats up to 252 votes. Florida continues to see an increase in its Hispanic population and this makes it lean slightly more in favor of Democrats which will determine the election. Even if Florida goes to Marco Rubio, Virginia is almost certainly going to go for Democrats again given the growing size of the DC Metro area will continue to push Virginia further to the left. This will give Hillary Clinton the Presidency and she will be our 45th President. Using 538s tool, it seems almost impossible for Democrats to lose as well.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

President Dayton

I have seen a lot about Governor Dayton of Minnesota recently, and seeing his record, he looks like a very viable candidate for President in the next election.

Right now, along with Governor Dayton, the potential candidates I find attractive or notable are:
  • Hillary Clinton - She has a better record than her husband, but is not as good a choice as other people I have been following
  • Bernie Sanders - not reliable and not honest as I have previously described.
  • Elizabeth Warren - not running, she remains my first choice
  • Martin O'Malley - Has a great record as governor of Maryland
  • Jim Webb - He has a strong progressive record in Congress.
  • Sheldon Whitehouse - Senator from Rhode Island, very progressive and honest, and would be a fantastic President
  • Jay Inslee - My governor is doing a fantastic job here in Washington state and has experience in Congress where he was progressive. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
  • Brian Schweitzer - The last governor of Montana is a strong progressive and would be a fine president.
  • Steve Bullock - The current governor is also extremely well qualified like his predecessor.
The Huffington Post wrote an article about Governor Dayton, and it is a very fair analysis.

Saturday, November 8, 2014

2014 election and implications

The 2014 election on Tuesday is following some extremely predictable patterns of American politics. It saw the lowest turnout since 1940, which is probably due to the general malaise of people saying "both parties are the same", which has some truth with some members of the Democratic Party being right-wing, such as Landrieu of Louisiana, and a few others who lost on Tuesday, but this malaise is likely a symptom of single-winner districts and first past the post. I have more information below.

NCSBE and Election Project along with US News have good data

This turn to voting for another party despite being partially cause by low turnout is also a recurring pattern in American politics known as the Six year itch.

Section 1: Turnout
If we wanted to measure how turnout decreased and where it decreased we would want to have the following information, which I have already done in a spreadsheet:

  1. We will want to know if having a governor's election increased turnout substantially.
  2. We will want to also know if having a senator's election increased turnout substantially.
  3. We will want to know if political alignment of a state changes voter turnout.
  4. We will want to know if political polarization of a state changes voter turnout, whether a state like Ohio and Florida which are extremely close in number of Democrats and Republicans will have a different turnout than a state like Hawaii or Utah.
There are more types of things we can do when it comes to seeing what effects turnout, but these are the four measures I am going to choose to analyze.

I took this data and measured in a spreadsheet the data based on them, here are my results:
  1. States with governor elections had a voter turnout of 37.44% (with a standard deviation of 8.2%) versus a turnout of 36.17% (with a standard deviation of 6.4%) for states that had no governor with a correlation of 16.7%. This demonstrates a very weak correlation between voting for governor and people turning out. The long-term average shows a turnout increase of 3% (governor = 43% vs. non-governor of 40%) with a standard deviation of 5% with elections and 7% without elections. Their correlation is 19%. This demonstrates that having governors elections still has a weak correlation. The other way we can measure correlation is to take two elections and find the correlation between them for each state, and the correlation between 2010 and 2014 for all 50 states is 78.3%, which is very strong. This means voters in states tend to vote year after year or not, with a little dependence on whether they are electing their governor. Lurking variables include voter access laws, and state corruption.
  2. States electing a senator had a voter turnout of 38.3% versus 35.9% for states that were not electing a senator with a correlation of 23%.
  3. Political alignment has a correlation of 27.04% with voter turnout. Political polarization has a correlation of 27.50%. The more polarized a state is the more likely it is people will vote, so this empirically demonstrates that one way to increase voter turnout is to have competitive districts as opposed to safe seats.
So in order to increase turnout we should implement an election system which ensures that every vote counts which means every district must be competitive. The best way to do this is STV, which I have written about a lot.

Section 2: 2016 (focused on strategy options)
History tells us that when one party takes over congress in the 6th year of a presidency it is almost always followed by a changing of the party in the next election, This has in fact occurred 14 times now in American history (out of 16 two-term presidents) which is a rate of 87.5%.

This type of arrangement where Congress is controlled by one party and the President is controlled by another has occured now 11 times (including this new instance), and out of 10 previous occurrences only one of them has not seen the Presidency flip parties, which started in 1946 and ended in 1948 when both houses of Congress became controlled by the Democrats and President Truman was reelected. This bodes well for the Republicans if history repeats itself again.

Then if the Democrats want to maintain control of the Presidency it is prudent to study President Truman and the Republicans of the late 1940s. It was a time of economic recovery, and there was a recession after World War II which helped the Republicans a lot in 1946. An economic recovery would then probably help the Democrats a lot. President Truman was also up for reelection which is different from this time. The election of 1988 is also pertinent since the last two years of Reagan's presidency saw the Democrats dominate both houses, and all of George HW Bush's presidency for a total of 6 years, which is unusual because out of the past 10 times this arrangement has happened 5 have lasted only 2 years, 1 lasted 4 years, 3 lasted 6 years, and the longest lasted 8 years. This is in other words a very unstable political arrangement. This means there is a 50% chance that 2016 will see a new party arrangement.

For the Republicans, the best they can do is have a charismatic leader who can capitalize on their advantage and take the Presidency. They need a strong Vice Presidential candidate who can turn on centrists as opposed to Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan. For the House they want the map to stay the way it is, which will not happen since Florida is already going to change. 

For the Democrats, they want a politician who people can look up to. They need someone who can get people to turn out to vote and vote for their local representatives. Turnout is going to be key, and they need to run strong candidates in every congressional district in the country to try to take as many seats as possible. Florida is going to be forced to redraw their districts to not be so gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans, and there are other states where this can be done, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Texas which will make the house elections much more balanced in the next election. They need to appear more liberal than the Republicans and not complacent in their demands. Getting new faces into the party who are from the progressive wing would be useful, and speaking to women, African Americans, and Hispanics would help get the vote out. Hopefully there will be a primary season with candidates who have experience to move the party back in line with their voter base. This will give the Democrats a massive advantage in the next election. Pushing for ranked voting would be another very smart move.

Section 3: Policy
The next two years will be difficult, and the Republicans will put forward budgets which will be from the interests they represent. Fortunately, President Obama has a veto pen and will hopefully use it. The only danger is that since we do not have a Line-item veto it is likely the Republicans will put things into budget bills that Obama would veto, but since he does not have the authority to veto budgets they will pass. People will inevitably blame the President for this Congressional decision, but it will not change the fact of who makes these changes. Gay marriage will continue to move through the court system, and the Supreme Court will likely support gay marriage in the very near future. Supreme Court nominations from Obama over the next two years will need to be moderate to get past Congress, I however doubt that there will be any retirees or deaths.

It is not going to be an exciting two years away from the courts, and there will hopefully not be a lot of court action on economics given the economic makeup of the court of 1 libertarian and 4 conservatives. This is very favorable to conservatives, so even though it will be dangerous it is likely more decisions like Citizens United v. FEC will be filed.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

2013 election and implications

So the 2013 election has just ended. The most important part was undoubtedly the governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia. Solid Republican Chris Christie led a gigantic victory in a deeply Democratic State. His campaign speech talked about showing how he can make sides work together. I find him undoubtedly the leader of the Republican Party's center wing, and the entire party. The other three wings are the Libertarians who are led by Rand Paul or Justin Amash who is the leader of their caucus, the Tea Party which is led by Marco Rubio, and the Far-right Christian Republicans is probably Bobby Jindal of Louisiana given his extreme social views, leader of the Republican Governors Association, and rising status in the party, but they have been less prominent since the rise of the Tea Party. Of these five people, the only candidate who has potential of winning over the hearts and minds of centrist voters is Chris Christie. The Libertarians are seen as outsiders as a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists, the Tea Party is seen as anti-government, and the Far-Right Evangelicals are unable to appease to anyone outside their small group. In Congress John Boehner routinely gives his power to the Tea Party's wishes, so he is not an effective leader, and Mitch McConnell is not someone who routinely speaks out on issues on national TV and when he does is seen as extremely arrogant with his comment on making President Obama a one term President his number one goal. In short, no one comes close to Chris Christie in his leadership of the Republican Party today. He brilliantly toured New Jersey with Governor (R) Susana Martinez of New Mexico, a brilliant move to reach out to Hispanics which is exactly what the Republican Party needs to stay relevant in the future as America becomes a majority-minority nation and will help keep Texas Red in the future. This will make far-right conservatives angry but keep it relevant for the other 80-90% of Americans who don't see Hispanic immigration as a threat. His speeches yesterday and today are a very clear election pitch, and he will be the Republican nominee in two years. He is a coalition builder like Ronald Reagan was with the libertarians and Far-Right Christians which will keep the Republicans from splitting and becoming irrelevant, only centrist and not extremist while Reagan was divisive and Christie is becoming a potentially unifying figure. He will bring them back to the center. Tonight's election is an important shift in history. If he had lost today the Republicans would be completely leaderless but for the next three years at least Chris Christie will be the face and voice of the Republicans.
The Virginia Race has several very important lessons for the nation. The first is the rising face of the Libertarians as a political force taking over 6% of the vote. The Libertarians in this election stole from the Democrats as we can clearly see by comparing the numbers for the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Virginia is a swing state and showing a 55.5% vote for a Democrat in a statewide election shows how it is still a swing state as it has been since the 1970s (where it has gone between Democrats and Republicans 5 times now) given how the last governor was a Republican. The Republicans need Virginia to win, and have won Virginia every time they have won since 1924. Virginia also has two Democrats in Congress. It is too early to say how Virginia will vote in the next Presidential election, but it is extremely important because there is no way a Republican can win the Presidency without Virginia, it hasn't happened for 89 years. There are only three true swing states in America that voted for the winner for the past four elections and the margin of victory in the last election was under 5% and they are Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. Even if Chris Christie takes all three of these three states in the next election the Democrats will have 272 electoral college votes unless if he takes at least one more state. This is going to be a large challenge for Christie.

The Democrats are going to need a candidate that can get their base to turn out in 2016 and capture the votes of people who don't usually vote and convince people that she is better than Chris Christie. Many people think Clinton will do that, but Clinton will not get the votes of people who lean close to center and no votes of people who lean slightly right, and she will be unable to get a lot of left leaning votes because she is very similar to Chris Christie's views in many ways, neither has a record of supporting gay marriage (Bill signed DOMA and Hillary is very similar to Bill in her views), and Chris Christie probably has the upper hand on economics. I actually might vote for Chris Christie over Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee given their similarities. I trust Christie more than Clinton. However, if the Democrats were to run Elizabeth Warren I would vote for her given her advocacy of consumer protection and Warren has the potential to defeat Christie heads down because when she gets on the stage with Christie in 2016 it is going to be a very interesting debate that will move America to the left. Looking at Christie's funding he got the majority of his money through public funds and has no incentive serve anyone but the people and it will be extremely interesting to see if he will be able to see how he will do on the national scale on campaign finance in comparison to the Democratic nominee and where his positions will be on more national problems over the next few years. I am certain he will be the Republican nominee, and he has real potential to win the Presidential election in 2016 if he stays true to his values. I have little doubt he will beat Clinton in 2016 since he will get most centrists, and neither candidate is getting over 50% when the two are matched up.

This doesn't mean he is a Keynesian though. His education policies are definitely right wing. The election will be very dependent on whether Christie keeps his more moderate positions or moves right like Romney and who the Democratic nominee is and how shall presents herself. The Democrats can use this to their advantage.

I am Progressive, and I actually have some respect for Chris Christie, in fact he is the only Republican politician that I have any respect for today. It is going to be a very interesting next three years. The Republican Party is about to irreversibly change significantly under Christie's leadership. The Tea Party will soon join the Know-Nothings in the history books. Christie (if elected) will become as important to the future Republican Party as President Franklin Roosevelt is to the Democratic Party today in how he redefined his party, there really is no other historical comparison to what Christie is becoming. I must say I like how the Republicans will become closer to center and we will be able to get real progress done.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Warren/Feingold 2016

The next Presidential election is 3 years away, but I have been thinking about who I want our 45th President to be and my decision is Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren has been one of the most vocal senators in this first year of her time in the Senate, and is willing to speak the truth that can always be backed up with big samples of data. She is a vocal supporter of the middle class and working poor of this country and I respect her more than any other politician currently in office for being so vocal and eloquent on these issues. We need a President who will stand for her positions and not cave into the demands of the people we didn't elect, which I am certain Elizabeth Warren will do. She will be 67 when she is elected President which will make her the third oldest President in history, but I think it should work the more I hear her speak. Over the past year she has had only one major slip of the tongue where she said she wasn't someone who had a vast array of stock portfolios which the entire mainstream media twisted into her saying she wasn't wealthy. The only other one was when she put down multiracial for having some Native American genealogy when she was in her early twenties, hardly something to worry about 40 years later. There really isn't anything else besides her platform people can attack which means she will be a very strong candidate who won't cave into the demands of the people we don't elect unlike most other Democrats.

Then there is the Vice President, and I would like to see Russ Feingold be our Vice President. He is a brave and fiery man, and was the only man who voted against the PATRIOT ACT. This is enough to make him someone fit for the Presidency. As a current envoy to the Great Lakes region of Africa he is getting great diplomatic experience and if he could take what he learns while he is there to the Executive Branch we could help the world's poorest region get on its feet which will seriously help our image abroad and the people of Africa. Feingold has lived a good live free of scandals and I can't find any slips of the tongue which means he will be an excellent Vice President or President.

There is a lot of talk about Hillary Clinton becoming President but I have one very good reason to oppose her: she voted for the PATRIOT ACT and didn't keep her head cool in 2001. That is enough for me to come to the conclusion that she is not fit to be President because like her husband she doesn't always stick to her platform. Elizabeth Warren and Russ Feingold are levelheaded and reliable, unlike the Clintons. The President needs to be levelheaded and stable in a crisis and both Warren and Feingold meet the bill, Clinton doesn't. We should hold our leaders to a higher standard. I might actually abstain or vote for a third party if she ran for office, I don't think she will stick to her platform, I think she will be like Obama and her husband and cave in to the Republicans as soon as she gets into office. In short, she is not Presidential material and I wish that the media would stop speculating on her running.

They are the right age to be President, they don't make a lot of missteps and neither has ever fell into the traps of the lobby money that is offered. Two other potential candidates are Bernie Sanders and Heidi Heitkamp. Most Senators are too easily swayed by the massive amount of money they receive and makes me think they aren't very presidential. It is time for a President who will stick by his/her platform and not be distracted by lobbyists to stick to their platform and speak their mind. The most effective Presidents in history used their bully pulpit, the best examples being LBJ and the Roosevelts who were three of our greatest presidents. The Warren/Feingold ticket will make this happen and I believe Elizabeth Warren has the potential to become our greatest president in American history. We need her.

The last thing that is important is whether the Warren/Feingold ticket can win. Assuming they don't win any states Romney won last year and retain all the non-swing states Obama won they will have 272 electoral college votes. I count Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina as our only real swing states given how they had less than 5% margin in 2008 and 2012, and all four voted for George W. Bush. The Republican Party's hopes of retaining the Presidency hinges on getting Pennsylvania from the Democrats in 2016 which would be difficult. Even if Chris Christie was nominated, I don't think it would be a guarantee victory for them to win because they would have to take every single swing state, which is possible. By reaching out to people who don't usually vote they can retain the Presidency, and the polls for Hillary Clinton show her defeating Christie handily, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ which makes me think the Democrats should have no problem running Elizabeth Warren who I trust a lot more than I trust Clinton.

Samples of Warren's speeches:
http://www.upworthy.com/a-senator-bluntly-says-what-were-all-thinking-about-the-awful-and-obnoxious-government-shutdown