kaizen
what's been floating my boat lately:
 

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
-Hitler-
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein-

11/17/20 (20:34)

  • Most of what I write here strives to be different from what is normally talked about. For this reason, and others, I probably come off as more controversial than I actually am. I'm exploring ideas and looking for areas that aren't as discussed or agreed upon. There's no fun or point in writing 2,000 words on how and why Trump is a POS.
  • Picking up where I left off last time...the media was making a big deal because Harris is the first woman VP-elect. We had this choice before many many times in the past. What's notable about it this time is that she won. But if this was a big deal for you, there were many times you could have let your actions speak louder than words. For example, in 2000 I voted for Ralph Nader and his VP running mate Winona LaDuke. I also voted for Elizabeth Warren and Biden/Harris. I didn't, however, vote for Sarah Palin. I suppose, though, that you could have done that if it was really important to you to have a woman in office. I'm guessing none of my readers cared enough about it to vote Republican, however.
  • Here are a couple facts: Georgia has a population of 3.7 million. Popular vote in Georgia is approx. 5 million.
  • So, those are two facts as far as we can tell and yet when you combine them it looks lot like there is voter fraud. How can Georgia have a population of 3.7 million if they've already counted almost 5 million votes cast in Georgia for Trump and Biden? The answer is that the country of Georgia has a population of 3.7 million and the state of Georgia has a population of 10.6 million. Apparently these two facts, when combined in a confusing way, have contributed to some thinking there has been fraud in the election. Sad!
  • NYC had lines of 4-6 hours for early voters. This lines issue is the same issue that has been used as ammo in the argument for voter suppression elsewhere. (Purging of voting rolls being the other big example of suppression). But here are excessively long lines in what is a Democratic stronghold. So, I don't think it's fair to say that long lines are always a sign of suppression. Although, that doesn't stop some people ("“This is nothing more than clear and simple voter suppression,” she said. “Voter suppression of senior citizens, voter suppression of people with disabilities and voter suppression of working women and men." The truth is that NYC didn't open enough polling places for early voting so there were long lines. Even with COVID and mail in voting, people still showed up in person so much that the lines were 5 hours long. This is ridiculous, of course, and another sign that government can't do its job - even when Democrats (who supposedly want to see government working well) run things. But it's also a sign that incompetence is more likely than malice (Hanlon's razor)...even if you wish it were otherwise. And let's be clear, there are some who really want there to be suppression so they can have someone to blame for their failures - or those of their party.
  • White men are the most privileged in society, right? So why do they disproportionately commit suicide? The most common theory I hear is that they have no one to blame for their fate in life so they take their own life when faced with despair. Whatever your model of the world, you have to come up with a theory that explains such an outcome.
  • A big part of my outlook on life is that life is suffering. My view of the state of nature is that it's basically chaos and despair. Happiness isn't the state of nature - hard work and despair are. Hobbes said life is nasty, brutish, and short. I think that's more accurate than the opposite.
  • I watched a lot of national geographic type stuff when I was a kid. And though most of it wasn't as concentrated as (this) that sort of thing is basically my view of nature. I think if you view life as potentially that bad on a regular basis, then it's a lot easier to take things like COVID in stride. If, however, you think life should be rainbows and unicorns, then any derivation from that hurts all the more.
  • If you have a rainbows and unicorns view of life it's also easier to go down the path of blaming others and thinking of life as oppressor vs. oppressed. After all, life should be great and yet it isn't so it must be someone's fault. Nature is paradise so things only go badly when corporations and governments and oppressors fuck everything up...so the reasoning goes. It's also easier to have this view of life when you've been spoiled by the success of the generations before us which have helped build a society that is good relative to the chaotic state of nature.
  • Someone said "Small minds discuss things. Average minds discuss people. Great minds discuss ideas." (Some think it was Eleanor Roosevelt, but it's not confirmed.) I think this is an important quote to remember these days. We have a lot of brilliant minds that have been focusing on one person for the last four years. I've said for a long time that Trump will be gone in 4-8 years, maybe less, and so we need to have discussions that keep that in mind. I'm less concerned about what he does or says than about the ideas raised by his tenure. I've also seen enough bogeymen in my life to know that it's just whack a mole with these idiots. All the experts have been saying for years that so and so is as bad as they come (Gingrich, Tom Delay, Mitch McConnell, Trump, Boehner, Lott, etc.). Principles and ideas should rise above these idiots and yet they hardly ever do.
  • Democrats are bewildered once again this election cycle. Among other things they are scratching their heads over the increase in votes for Trump by Blacks (small increase to about 10%) and Latinos (decent increase 28-->32%). The reason this doesn't compute is that they have a model of the world that views things along starkly racial lines. It mostly holds for Blacks (90% voting for Democrats), but for Asians and Latinos (both about 30%) it's not as stark as Democrats' view of the world would expect. It's the same reason they have no answer for Log Cabin Republicans (gay Republicans). They think belonging to a demographic group should equate to a political outlook. Besides this being a pretty racist world view, it's also plainly wrong. It doesn't take into account that race/gender aren't defining characteristics for all people. It doesn't take into account religion. It doesn't consider free thought. It doesn't allow for nuance like Mexican vs. Cuban or Chinese vs. Vietnamese. Liberals tend to be the ones to point out that race is a social construct and yet they are also the ones who don't seem to understand the limitations of this construct.
  • Why did we hear about Kanye West running for president and possibly taking votes from Biden, but I never heard about Jo Jorgensen taking votes from Trump (538 may have actually addressed it once)? I think this is yet another indicator of a clear pro-Biden bias in the media. Jorgensen received way more votes and (as I pointed out in a previous post) may have actually influenced the election (if you buy that sort of thinking), yet she received almost no "spoiler" type coverage in the liberal media that I follow. Half as many results come up for "kanye spoiler biden" as come up for "jorgensen spoiler trump" in case that means anything.
  • If we want better people in leadership positions (and I think we should) then we need to allow them to make mistakes from time to time without canceling them or raking them over the coals. With the media coverage as it is you get people who don't mind the constant scrutiny and attention....in other words extraordinarily thick skinned people or very power hungry people or narcissists like Trump and Bill Clinton. Couple this media dynamic with the need to raise ridiculous amount of money and you get narcissistic people who are super rich, don't mind asking for money, are beholden to the rich...none of these things are recipes for good candidates.
  • If you haven't heard of onlyfans then you're probably not on the internet much. Seeing as more and more of the real world is moving to the fake world, you should probably at least be aware of what's going on there. In a lot of ways the internet is the distillation of the worst (and best) of humans. Anyway, here's a video on the psychology behind onlyfans. Might be an interesting data point to keep in mind when you consider the dynamics of power in gender today.
  • If you're a pro-diversity person, like me, then you have to be saddened by studies that find that Blacks do better when taught by other Blacks (1. 2. 3.). Or that girls learn better in all girl environments (1. 2. 3.). I've heard these arguments before and it's always in a pro-black teacher or pro-all girls school sort of discussion. But, at the same time, it undermines any argument you might make for diversity as a strength. It reaffirms things that David Duke and Mohammed Ali agree on: people should stick with their own tribe. This is a sad outcome if you don't like that conclusion. Personally I'm not a pro-all girls school type of person. I believe that girls need to learn to get along with boys and vice versa. At the same time, it sure seems clear that girls do better without boys around so should do worse because we believe in diversity?
  • I haven't been able to find as much data on how boys do without girls, so that's another question. It's also pretty clear to me that school today is a better match for girls than boys. No more shop classes or vocational training and much more geared towards people who can sit still for hours on end and learn in a rigid environment. Boys tend to be more high energy - ADHD and autism spectrum types and these attributes are in stark contrast with the pedagogy of today's schools. Makes sense, I suppose, since most teachers are women. We also now have more women in college than men. So, it sure seems that, at least in education, the power seems to be clearly on the side of girls.
  • When Clarence Thomas got grilled his response was to call it a modern day lynching. When Kavanaugh got grilled his response was equally angry and he called it an attack because of pent up rage having to do with Clinton's loss. WTF is wrong with these people? I think Kavanaugh's response, in particular, was disqualifying. However, I didn't see much discussion about Amy Coney Barrett's qualifications when she was nominated. There was a bunch of talk about the process, but very little in the media about whether she could do the job or not. This should be the only real question. After Kavanaugh showed his partisanship he should have been out. ACB, though, didn't have a response like that. She dodged all the questions like they usually do, but that's not unusual anymore. I wish they were required to answer questions of substance. This would be accountability of some sort, but that doesn't happen. It's interesting to note that a lot of people have in mind that Thomas sexually assaulted Anita Hill. In fact, some talking heads have even claimed that...I guess the collective memory on this has shifted. The reality is that he talked to Hill about porn and stuff and made her uncomfortable, but he was never accused of rape or assault like Kavanaugh (or Biden and Clinton and Franken and Trump and Hastert for that matter).
  • If you believe that SCOTUS judges should be term limited (18 years is usually the number thrown out), would you be willing to have that term limit start with the judged selected under Biden? If you're not even willing to make a simple concession like that then how do you expect the other side would ever concede anything?
  • Unfortunately we have a society that thinks in zero sum ways these days. If I give in then I lose and they win. This is what happens when you have this sort of unholy alliance between the worst parts of Marxism and Post-Modernist-everything-is-about-power thinking.

  • Does anyone else find the timing of the vaccine announcement pretty obvious? They clearly had the information in the bag and waited until after the election was called to announce it. Election was called Saturday and the vaccine was announced Monday. Not saying this is a bad thing...they probably didn't want to influence the election one way or another, but it's interesting to note. From what I gather, the vaccine looks pretty legit, but will have some logistical issues since it requires a cold chain (quite a bit colder than usual, too) and requires two shots.
  • I'd also like to throw out there that I'm in no rush to get the vaccine. I'm not in an at risk group and this vaccine came in less than a year when the fastest vaccine in history was 4 years. Are any liberal minded people going to be brave enough to be at all skeptical of the vaccine or are they going to toe the party line? Does the fear and hate of multinational corporations suddenly disappear because the party is all in on the pro-vaccine train? It combines the anti-anti-science/anti-anti-vaxxers movement with the anti-Trump (who is in denial about COVID) movement, so I'm guessing Democrats will be all about getting a vaccine...and this is supported by the polls. 81% of Dems say they would get vaccine and 58% of Republicans.
  • It's another one of those situations where we get to see what is more important. If having a woman VP is super important then you would have voted for Palin. If distrust of multinational corporations is really high then you wouldn't get the COVID vaccine. But, in reality, it looks like having a woman VP isn't as important as having a Democrat VP. And embracing science is more important than distrusting the profit motive of a huge corporation. Personally, I'm in no rush - I'll let other people be the guinea pigs. I trust science, but it's gotta be real science that is well-reviewed, has a large sample size, isn't rushed, etc. Good science takes time.
  • The COVID situation is changing as the experts predicted. With the changing weather the case count is increasing quite a bit. See first image below. However, the deaths are staying steady. Usually deaths lag behind, but that's not the issue here. Deaths are going down because we're getting better at dealing with COVID. We're also identifying more cases because testing is increasing. As I called many months ago, the number of cases was way underreported in the early months.
  • Of course none of this seems to matter to any of the people in charge. The fact that we're handling things better than ever doesn't seem to have entered into the calculus for Newsom or others who are now calling for increasing restrictions as case numbers increase. The fact that students have been out of school for 8+ months doesn't matter. The mental health impact doesn't matter. It seems as though the only data point worth their while is the number of cases.


  • 11/5/20 (23:34)
  • Things are looking a lot better for Biden now. Definitely a squeaker, but it appears as though he could get as much as 306 in the electoral college, which is what Trump got in 2016. And he would win by as much as 7 million popular votes. This would be good news overall, but not the repudiation of Trump I was hoping for.
  • I think the big story of this election (once we get past the lawyers doing their bullshit and we finally have a winner...assuming there isn't some kind of attempted coup) is the split vote from Americans. They clearly didn't approve of Trump (projected 7 million votes more for Biden), but they also don't approve of the Democratic agenda (to the extent that there is one). Just like the Republicans under Obama, Democrats haven't done much to articulate a coherent national agenda. Party leaders haven't pushed a Green New Deal or healthcare or any of the other things the pundits discuss. I frankly don't know what they were planning on doing the next couple years other than those things that their proxies talked about. There are discussions of defunding police, raising taxes on the rich...but I'm I think they are being purposely vague so they don't tie themselves to a particular policy.
  • So, there are vague policy ideas in the mix and this is coupled with an overall sense that Democrats are oriented towards the kinds of things I mentioned. Race is a central issue. The environment may be a big issue. Healthcare. Increasing taxes. Police reform. But because nothing has been very well articulated they've left a bit of a vacuum and the imagination runs wild for the average voter. They look at how Democrats are running things in Seattle and Portland and California and they are forced to decide if that's what they want on the national level. The average American probably isn't too excited about most of what they're seeing there.
  • So, they don't like Trump and vote against him. They don't think the Democrats have much of a plan and see that the Democrats are basically oriented pretty far to the left and so they vote for Biden and their local Republican Senator or Representative. Democrats are going to lose seats in the House and likely won't gain control of the Senate.
  • If you're the Democrats you're happy about Biden, but you really should be taking very seriously this loss in the Congress. Of course, the Dems probably won't learn their lesson. They will double down on racial issues (which don't resonate with the marginal voter). They will flub the discussion of taxes. They will talk about the environment from the wrong perspective (tending towards talking about how much we pollute and how awful we are [Americans are bad - see my 3 points below] instead of talking aspirationally about how we can bring blue collar jobs to middle America and lead the world in self-sufficient technology).
  • In GA the race is now within 1,000 votes. Why haven't the Democrats complained about the 3rd party candidate Jo Jorgensen who has 61k votes? A couple reasons: 1. the election isn't over yet and it probably won't come down to GA. 2. the 3rd party candidate is from the Libertarian party so she is "taking votes away" from Trump, not Biden. Jorgensen is getting 1% of the vote in GA, PA, AZ, NV...If she wasn't on the ballot there's a decent chance we'd be looking at a second Trump term. So, if you're one of those people who blamed Nader for Bush, then you should be thanking Jorgensen today. I won't hold my breath.
  • Every time there's an election the media pundits try to ascribe the win to a single group of people. Sometimes it's women. Other times it's Hispanics. This year it will probably be black voters. Just bear in mind that this is an absurd idea being put forth by absurd people.
  • Another example of bad Americans I forgot to add below is the "basket of deplorables" from Hillary. How did she think that would go over well with the undecided/marginal voter who probably has a family member who is voting for Trump? Your friends and family are deplorable and racist for voting for Trump...vote for me. Well, we saw how that worked out.
  • Another Hillary example that ties into point #3 is her comments after the election that, though she lost, she won the parts of the country that contribute to most of the GDP. here.  "I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, 'Make America Great Again,' was looking backwards. You know: 'You didn't like black people getting rights, you don't like women, you know, getting jobs, you don't want to, you know, see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I'm going to solve it.'"
  • She embodied a lot of what's wrong with politicians and Democrats more specifically. I think this is why people still talk about her. In a way she's a more interesting and relevant politician than her narcissistic, lying husband.
  • This comment of hers in particular illustrates the kind of elitism you see from the leftist intelligensia. Like much of what they say it's factually correct and yet quite wrong-headed. What's the implication of a comment like that? "Yeah, I lost the dumb people who don't generate any money, but they don't matter as much." If you hate those voters they probably won't vote for you. And this is where I have more faith in the average American. They tend to have a pretty good bullshit detector. They can tell when someone is disengenuous.
  • So, what happened with the average American voting for Trump in 2016 then? Isn't he a bigger con artist than Hillary? Of course he is - in a way. I think the average American could tell that Trump truly believed America is a great country and wants to help the average American. They could tell that normal politicians hadn't worked in a long time. So it was time to give Trump a try. Back to my 3 points below. Trump affirmed that America is having trouble, but that America and Americans are fundamentally good. There's nothing to be ashamed of. Things are fucked now, but I can help, I want to help, and it's not your fault that things are this way.
  • Republicans added something like 13 women Representatives. If you're a rah-rah feminist type is this a good thing? What's more important - Democratic representation or female representation? This is interesting to me because it's a chance to see what people actually value. Do you actually want women and their different life experiences coming to the table? Or do you want people who are going to uphold your view of what women should want in the political sphere? Is it better to have a pro-life woman on the supreme court or a pro-choice man? If it's actually about female representation then it's the former. If it's about perceived women's issues then maybe it's the latter.

  • 11/3/20 (20:08)

  • Voted for a major party candidate for president for the first time in my life this week. Not thrilled about Biden, but Trump is cancer so I had to do it.
  • If Trump wins, remember, it's no big deal. Like John Mulaney said - nothing will change...Trump vs. Biden...same difference since they're both old white guys.
  • If Trump wins, it's exactly this kind of thinking from Democrats that will hand him the victory. All old white guys are the same. Your race and gender determine who you are.
  • The Democratic/intelligentsia argument generally seems to be along these lines, and I've written directly and indirectly about this before:
  • 1. America is bad... and has always been bad (1619 Project is a great example of this thesis). Michelle Obama being proud of the US "for the first time in her adult life" is another.
    2a. You're bad. If you're a cisgender white man then you're part of the power structure and you're bad for even existing. White silence is violence...and yet your speech is also violence. If you speak then it's because of your entitlement. If you don't speak then it's upholding a racist/misogynist paradigm. If you move into an urban area it's gentrification (racist), if you move out of an urban area it's white flight (also racist)
    2b. Not only are you bad for existing, but much of what you do is bad in the eyes of some of those in our coalition (whom we openly embrace out of fear of getting called out by our own): You eat meat, which is murder. You drive a truck which contributes to global warming, which is the greatest threat the world faces. If you have doubts about the peaceful nature of Islam then you're an Islamaphobe. If you're not attracted to trans women then you're transphobic. Etc.
    3. You're stupid. Americans are stupid. You're dumb for loving America. You're dumb for considering voting for Trump or Bush or even McCain and Romney. Romney is evil, remember? You don't understand science. You don't understand culture. You're without culture. Any culture you have is bad. Any good culture you have is stolen from others (cultural appropriation).
  • I don't think this is a good way to get the middle to vote for you. America is bad. You're bad. You're stupid. I'm not a Republican and yet I feel this message coming through in what much of what the Democrats have to say about the country. Republicans tend not to acknowledge even the existence of a bad history in America. Democrats almost revel in this bad history. They seemingly love writing books and articles about it. Other Democrats share those books and articles. If you're reading this you're probably a Democrat and you've probably shared books/articles about these things by: Michelle Alexander, Ibram X. Kendi, Ta-nehisi Coates, Nikole Hannah-Jones. You've lamented over the evil history and present facts of America on issues of race or foreign relations. We're a war-mongering, overly religious, stupid, unenlightened country. These are the things that Democrats I know generally believe. They have evidence for these things and are therefore not incorrect.
  • However, that doesn't win elections. Obama won in part because of that message of hope. He turned out the black vote and that helped, but he also didn't judge whites for the evils of the nation's past. He talked more about the great things the country is about.
  • I went in to tonight hoping that Biden would win Florida and NC and we could rest easy that, even with all the counting to be done with mail-in votes, Biden would get a clear victory. However it's looking like the chances of knowing anything definitive tonight are unlikely.
  • As things stand right now, AZ is probably going to Biden which is good news. Biden needs VA and 2 of 4 midwestern states (OH, PA, MI, WI). Democrats are going to continue to cry about the electoral college and democracy. I think Democrats aren't clear on what game it is they're playing.
  • It's possible to play chess and make the goal getting as many of the opponents pieces as possible. But that's not how you play chess - it's all about checkmating the king. Crying about the fact that you got more of the other player's pawns after they get your king is kind of idiotic.
  • Let's say the Democrats win the trifecta...I've heard some pundits talking about what the priorities should be. To me it's very clear what they should do and, as usual, I'm not in line with what they've been saying. Most have said things like Green New Deal or reestablish good ties with our allies abroad or healthcare reform or roll back tax cuts for the rich or a wealth tax or any number of pet policies.
  • To me, though, it should be entirely about changing the game going forward. Getting started on things like: 1. federal standards on voting so we don't have 50 different ballots for federal elections (no more butterfly ballot issues, no more hanging chads, no more questions about digital votes, etc.). 2. DC representation. Whether they become part of MD or their own state. They need representation. 3. Properly aligning electoral college and representatives according to population. WY's district has under 500k people. MT's district has almost 1 million. Fair apportionment of representatives and electoral votes should be common sense. Increasing the number of representatives almost certainly needs to happen along with this. 4. Get rid of filibuster.
  • In 2016, 538 gave Trump a 29% chance to win. This year they gave him a 10% chance to win. The chance that he wins both those would be 2.9%, right? So, if Trump wins then I'm done with 538. I like them. They seem very smart and well-reasoned. They seem balanced. If they're wrong again, though, it's just not a very useful site when it comes to prediction (which is what they're supposed to be about).
  • I used to buy the line that the media is only as liberal as its rich corporate owners. But I think these days it's pretty obvious that the media is (overall) quite liberal. One thing I've noticed about the media is that they do a lot of stories about the things the reporters like and wish for. So, they will do stories about how suburban white women are rising up and voting Democrat. (You may recall that white women voted for Trump over Hillary in 2016). The obvious take away from a story like this is that white women, like the one telling this story, are righting a wrong and going to swing Biden into the Oval Office in 2020. This is an aspirational story. It's something that the reporter wants to be true. Sure, all the facts of the story are likely to be true - all the people interviewed are doing what they said they're doing, things have been fact-checked, etc. This makes the facts of the story true, but not necessarily the conclusion that the reporter wants you to reach. There's a lot of this kind of "reporting" that I see and it's a big part of the reason for my dropping podcasts like Radiolab from my feed a couple years ago. Everything becomes political, and it's not even the kind of political that seeks truth - it's political that seeks to find a way to reinforce an existing belief.
  • This is a core problem not only with our media, but also our society. We live in a data age. There's so much data out there that it's easier than ever to assemble a few white moms who don't want to vote for Trump this time around and think it means something. You can assemble gaffes from Hillary and make her look like she's losing her mind. 538 seems above this to the extent that this is possible. So, if I lose 538 it will be a big blow to my faith in yet another institution.
  • BTW, I called Lindsay Graham winning reelection. Democrats sent almost $60 million to his opponent in just a few months and yet Graham still won. When I found out about this I knew it was a bad idea. They did this against Ted Cruz in 2016 and O'Rourke lost there. They did it again with Graham and lost. The ironic thing about the Democrats is that they're the party of smart people (they tend to win the college educated voters by a good margin), but they make some of the dumbest possible decisions. You're just throwing your money away by trying to defeat Graham and Cruz. Can a registered Democrat reader explain this to me please? WTF is your party doing?
  • Along the same lines of making the same mistake twice...GA and TX are supposedly swing states this year. I can't say I ever bought into that either. I'd be shocked if either go to Biden. NYT currently thinks things are close in GA. I'm highly skeptical that GA will go to Biden.
  • If you think that Trump is Hitler-esque then what would you expect? Well, Hitler used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to subvert the rule of law and take a step towards fascism. Trump had an equal opportunity with COVID and rioting. He could have shut down the borders. He could have instituted martial law. So, perhaps he's not as fascist as some would have you believe. You can't simply ignore a fact like this. It's easy to miss because it's a thing he didn't do, but it's an important thing to notice.
  • Another thing that Trump could have done, but didn't, was announce that a vaccine was approved and shipping out. He's a liar and a bad person. He could have announced it today, but he didn't. Why didn't he?
  • If Trump wins, and possibly even if he doesn't but it's close, I think political scientists, pundits, etc. really need to rethink how they evaluate things. What does someone need to do to lose a reelection campaign? No one has lost reelection in 28 years. Is it even possible anymore? Money doesn't move the needle like people used to think. Trump has underspent his rival both times and won once and has a chance to repeat. Having the media on your side doesn't seem to matter anymore. No point in making nice with them like the Democrats always do. Trump speaks directly to the people via Twitter, etc. In some ways, being adversarial with the media is an advantage because, like me, many Americans don't have much respect for the media anymore. Again, more things that Democrats don't seem to understand about the country.
  • How much does policy matter? It matters to the media. It matters to the academics. But how many white papers have you read? Do you even know what a white paper is? Does anyone care that Hillary had a white paper on just about every policy a candidate could have a policy on? People care about party. People care about how a candidate makes them feel. They care about disposition and attitude. They want the candidate to be on their side.
  • When was the last time the shorter presidential candidate won? In the TV era the shorter candidate has won 4 times. 1972, 1976, 2000 (debatable), 2004.
  • So, let's say Biden wins. If so, it'll be a close win and maybe after a few days or weeks. Will there be rioting? I'd say the more likely source of riots would be if Trump wins.
  • Trump could announce that he's won tonight. He's the kind of person who would do that despite it being very much uncertain. If you're Biden maybe you beat him to it. The media will cover it. They'll be surprised and will probably give some caveats and fact check a bit, but Biden could just assert that PA is projected to go his way and that he's won the race. Puts Trump on the defensive. These are the kinds of games people could start playing if they really don't care about norms anymore.
  • It pains me to say this, but CNN has the best coverage tonight. John King is really good about putting the numbers in context. They seem to have gotten past all the hologram nonsense that they were doing in years past. It seemed that they were trying to be cutting edge with technology as though it indicated they were good at reporting. They also don't have 10 talking heads on the screen at the same time like they have done in the past. So, as far as covering the horse race aspect of the election, they're doing well.
  • Trump is the funniest president of my lifetime.


  • Copyright 1998, 1999,2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
    2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, & 2020 by me.
    everything on here is my opinion, so don't sue me.


     

    Search www.aptpupil.org