Pragmatically Distributed

The predictive model I will use on Monday to get a feel for who will control the House is built around a boundary condition and proxy sampling.

The boundary condition, based on historical data, will set an upper limit for the best case Democrats can expect in the House.

I will use Senate races as a proxy sample for useful information about late trends affecting the House.

Senate races will be looked at from two perspectives to gather information about two categories of election trends affecting the House downstream from trends in the Senate –

1) Senate campaigns will be categorized by region of the country to get a feel for any national or regional trends breaking in favor of either Republicans or Democrats. From Senate trends I will estimate by proxy sampling trends for House races.

2) Senate campaigns will be categorized by whether the state holding an election is historically Republican leaning, Democrat leaning, or evenly divided. This category will be used to estimate by proxy levels of Republican and Democratic turnout in House races as well as estimate what direction Independents are breaking.

As for sampling methodology, if mainstream political analysts weren’t crackpots I would be surprised they adopted the crackpot idea that Senate trends are decoupled from House trends. Since they are crackpots I can only say they are staying true to form by wrongly thinking there is no statistical relationship between how contests will unfold in the Senate and House.

Pragmatically Distributed will assume there is a connection based on historical results. Past midterms show that outcomes in the Senate are mirrored in the House because competitive Senate races are geographically representative samples of the national vote.

The exception to this rule have been draws where there was no significant change in the partisan makeup of Congress.

This year’s Senate races are, as usual, geographically dispersed well enough across the country that I can use Senate trends in the last day or two as a proxy for the House. This is advantageous because direct polling in Congressional districts is tricky due to their often being drawn in odd twists and turns.

Continue reading “Prediction Modeling Control of the House with Boundary Conditions & Proxy Sampling via Senate Races”

 

Where it doesn’t count because they have nothing at risk, Western Europe and Canada, Trump is the worst.

Continue reading “Where Military-Industrial Power Counts, Trump is the Greatest Foreign Policy President since Reagan”

 

But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.

[…]

Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.

Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a wellregulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.

Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage, and made a conquest of the commonwealth.

Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II. found means to accomplish that formidable league,9 which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic.

The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV.

In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the predominant pursuit of that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have been more frequently engaged in war; and the wars in which that kingdom has been engaged have, in numerous instances, proceeded from the people.

There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars.

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers : No. 6

However long the exile in peace, limited Democratic nations composed of free men always return to slaughtering their neighbors in wars of aggression for the sake of commerce.

Among the top Nationalistic priorities of the American commercial Republic is the consistent enforcement of a policy of preemptive strikes, initiated by ourselves or by a regional ally, to destroy the nuclear programs of rogue governments before those programs are completed.

We will demonstrate that a preemptive airstrike is worthwhile even if we can assume nuclear armed rogue governments have no intention whatsoever of using their weapons.

Or, if airpower alone is not enough to destroy the program for whatever reason, then some combined arms operation involving air, land, and sea forces to quickly go in after the weapons and then get the hell out.

Of course, if we can’t assume the chances of their use is zero (it isn’t) the argument for preemptive measures is even stronger.

Whether rogue governments intend to use nuclear weapons or not, Federalist anti-proliferation policy remedies both possibilities with wonderful simplicity: Enemy states cannot threaten America or our alliance system with nuclear weapons if they do not have nuclear weapons.

Although this policy can be equally applied against chemical and biological capabilities, nuclear programs are above all the highest priority in anti-proliferation because of the limits to the effectiveness of chemical and biological agents.

Bio-warfare and chemical warfare were researched extensively by America and the Soviet Union at research centers such as Fort Detrick, Maryland and, in Russia, VECTOR. Both forms of warfare produced mixed results primarily because of limits to delivery mechanisms and lack of certainty over how widespread an outbreak zone would be due to factors such as weather conditions, geography, etc. Nuclear weapons remain the most dangerous WMD of all because of the certainty of what the impact zone is regardless of weather and other obstacles to the effectiveness of biological and chemical arsenals.

The example America should follow is the one set by Israel in the 1981 against Saddam Hussein’s facilities at Osirak and their strike against Syria’s program in 2007.

The example we want to avoid is President Bill Clinton’s when his Administration did not attack (and did not allow India to attack) Pakistan’s nuclear program in the mid-1990s and when his Administration did not strike North Korea’s nuclear program in 1994. The time when they had not yet produced bombs was when they were most vulnerable to an American attack (or an attack indirectly supported by America) that would have come at a much lower cost than they would today.

Continue reading “Returning the Preemption of Rogue Nuclear Programs Back to Constitutional Government”

 

“In the days of Henry Clay, I was a Henry Clay-tariff-man and my views have undergone no material change on that subject.”

Letter from Lincoln to Edward Wallace, May 12, 1860

“During my whole political life, I have loved and revered Clay as a teacher and leader.”

Lincoln, July 6, 1852

“Give us a protective tariff, and we shall have the greatest nation on earth.”

Lincoln, 1847

“Such are some of the items of this vast system of protection, which it is now proposed to abandon. We might well pause and contemplate, if human imagination could conceive the extent of mischief and ruin from its total overthrow, before we proceed to the work of destruction. Its duration is worthy, also, of serious consideration. Not to go behind the Constitution, its date is coeval with that instrument. It began on the ever memorable 4th day of July the 4th day of July, 1789. The second act which stands recorded in the statute book, bearing the illustrious signature of George Washington, laid the cornerstone of the whole system. That there might be no mistake about the matter, it was then solemnly proclaimed to the American people and to the world, that it was necessary for “the encouragement and protection of manufactures,” that duties should be laid.

[…]

Mr. Hamilton, surveying the entire ground, and looking at the inherent nature of the subject, treated it with an ability which, if ever equalled, has not been surpassed, and earnestly recommended protection.”

Henry Clay before the United States Senate on the National System, February 2, 3, and 6; 1832

“If the system of perfect liberty to industry and commerce were the prevailing system of nations—the arguments which dissuade a country in the predicament of the United States, from the zealous pursuits of manufactures would doubtless have great force. It will not be affirmed, that they might not be permitted, with few exceptions, to serve as a rule of national conduct. In such a state of things, each country would have the full benefit of its peculiar advantages to compensate for its deficiencies or disadvantages. If one nation were in condition to supply manufactured articles on better terms than another, that other might find an abundant indemnification in a superior capacity to furnish the produce of the soil. And a free exchange, mutually beneficial, of the commodities which each was able to supply, on the best terms, might be carried on between them, supporting in full vigour the industry of each. And though the circumstances which have been mentioned and others, which will be unfolded hereafter render it probable, that nations merely Agricultural would not enjoy the same degree of opulence, in proportion to their numbers, as those which united manufactures with agriculture; yet the progressive improvement of the lands of the former might, in the end, atone for an inferior degree of opulence in the mean time: and in a case in which opposite considerations are pretty equally balanced, the option ought perhaps always to be, in favour of leaving Industry to its own direction.

But the system which has been mentioned, is far from characterising the general policy of Nations. The prevalent one has been regulated by an opposite spirit.

The consequence of it is, that the United States are to a certain extent in the situation of a country precluded from foreign Commerce.”

Alexander Hamilton, The Report on the Manufactures, December 1791

Continue reading “Robber Baron Capitalism in Four Lessons – Part III: The Report on the Manufactures Revisited”

 

Continue reading “Taking a Pin to The Collusion Balloon by Reframing “Collusion” as a Harmless Joke”

If the game Trump was playing was obstruction of justice (not collusion) then it’s Mueller and Comey who have the legal problems.

And I assert this with confidence as one who has – and who will continue to in this article – argued all along the FBI has created a legal fiasco for itself.

And all this superb content done without myself bothering to give you, the reader, analysis of the convoluted legal facts.

As I predicted back in May of 2017, Comey never had evidence of collusion with Russia.  His real plan to threaten Trump with impeachment (and then launch a Comey 2020 Presidential campaign which I also predicted in May 2017) was to provoke Trump into firing him and then later having a special counsel charge Trump with obstructing of justice because of Comey’s firing.

From May 2017:

Comey’s strategy was a variant taken from the playbook of his mentor and friend, Patrick Fitzgerald.  The Fitzgerald strategy is to spend years kindling a media firestorm with limited, but carefully selected, leaks about a major investigation into the supposed crimes of a Republican White House, but only to end up nailing a few suspects on investigative crimes unrelated to the major felony the media was yearning for.

This was Fitzgerald’s approach to the bogus Valerie Plame “outing”; I believe it was Comey’s strategy in the bogus election investigation.

But with modifications.

Instead of being satisfied with exonerating the White House for the underlying crime but nailing advisers on unrelated charges as Fitzgerald did in “Plamegate“, Comey hoped to bring down Trump on an obstruction of justice charge; charges that could either leave his Presidency sandbagged with a large scandal or actually lead to impeachment.

Comey’s reported actions are consistent with passive-aggressive attempts to anger Trump in order to get him to make statements that could be construed as interfering with the investigation.

Based on what has been reported about their private conversations, Comey appeared very coy responding to Trump’s questions about what state the investigation was in, who was under investigation, whether the intelligence probe was being converted to a criminal case, or whether Trump himself was being criminally investigated.

Meanwhile, Comey quietly encouraged the media to speculate about the direction of the investigation (such as the urine soaked “dossier”) based on leaks strategically fed to them even though Comey himself had known for months there was no underlying crime.

In public testimony to the Congress, Comey was careful to give as little information as possible.

By keeping the true state of the investigation a very tightly held secret and letting it unnecessarily drag on despite most Congressmen and Senators admitting in public they had seen no evidence of a crime, he hoped to let Trump’s imagination and frustration grow wild in meetings Comey meticulously kept notes about.

Eventually, he planned, Trump would make enough small to medium size (or one obviously over the line) statements that bordered on obstruction for Comey to later argue collectively made for a true case of obstruction.

 

So much for that obstruction case.

The IG report gives extensive evidence Comey’s Directorship was so questionable that Trump will have no problem spinning (regardless of facts) that Comey deserved to be fired for gross mismanagement.

Continue reading “Trump Cages The Two Great Lovers, Mueller & Comey”

Wrong election models?  There is no shortage.

For good election models (as with all good statistical models) we require good methodology.

Sound methodology in this field starts with anticipating what the election dynamic will be between dominant variables.  If the right dynamic and dominant variables are chosen, we then sift through the results of the the model for useful information about the election.  From this useful information we then determine what course of action (if any) to take in an election.

And, if you want to compare my c.v. on predictive analytics with others, I refer you to these examples –

From November 07, 2016:

IBD’s number today suggest R-D turnout levels will be even.

Early voting totals suggest IBD is right, but that state pollsters haven’t adjusted their turnout models correctly.

For example, in the CBS/Yougov poll of Florida, which had the state tied 45-45, their weighted sample had whites being only 61.7% of all voters, Hispanics 19.8 and blacks 13.7.

But according to early Florida vote results whites are 66% of the electorate, Hispanics 15% and blacks 13%. If the CBS turnout model is adjusted with these actual figures then Trump is ahead by over 1 point in Florida, and this before election day voting which will break strongly for him.

I’m now confident Trump will take Florida tomorrow.

For another example, most state polls of North Carolina have that state even despite early voting being disastrous for Democrats.

If state polls are generally built around 2012 turnout models and if IBD is right that Republican and Democrat turnout will be even, the state polls, which are very tight, are overestimating Hillary’s actual position.

 

From August 29, 2015 –

Actually, Trump is winning a plurality of Evangelicals and just about every other Republican demographic. Trump is also performing well enough in general election matchups that I’m now comfortable switching my support from Walker to him.

As for Ben Carson, his bump is probably a temporary result of the debate. I suspect Carson will fade and Cruz will pick up most of his social con supporters. But it won’t be enough for Cruz to stop Trump.

 

That last excerpt is from back in 2015 when Scott Walker was still in the GOP presidential primary, and when Ben Carson was in second place, ahead of Ted Cruz.  Cruz, if you remember, did go on to pass Carson and finish second to Trump in delegates.

Continue reading “Simulation Modeling the Midterms Correctly”

 

By the Condor Principle I mean the Hamiltonian foreign policy principle which, like every other diplomatic modus operandi of the glorious Party, had its fine details ironed out, and subsequently put into motion, during the Cold War.

The Condor Principle is named in honor of Operation Condor.  The central idea behind that noble Operation was it does not matter at all if a foreign government is Dictatorial nor how many “human rights” violations it commits; it matters only if the dictatorship is aligned (or at least neutral) with American corporate-military-industrial interests or if it is hostile to American corporate-military-industrial interests.

If you comply, Hamiltonians ignore how many of your citizens were foolish enough to be in a village, town, or city when you firebombed it.

And if you do not, it is you who are firebombed.

Continue reading “Three Memorial Day Cheers for the Condor Principle & Three Jeers for Iraqi “Democracy””

Just call James Comey Spymaster.

And this spymaster has finally been hit with the investigatory knockout I’ve been expecting –

If they refer to criminal activity involved with the FBI’s monitoring of the Trump campaign that likely means they see particular violations of particular legal statutes.

If it turns out there is evidence of criminal use of FISA warrants then the investigation is likely cooked: Among other effects Comey and McCabe would potentially become targets of a criminal investigation, Mueller as Comey’s close friend and mentor would be too biased to remain as special counsel, the trustworthiness of the Russia investigation will suffer a decisive loss in public confidence, other FBI officials lower on the food chain may squeal on their superiors to save themselves, and so forth.

Continue reading “Legal Facts Do Not Matter – As I Predicted, the Russia Investigation has Backfired on Spymaster Comey & his Investigators”

With his periscope videos about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I see Scott Adams making a common mistake foreign policy analysts make when they discuss how “rational” warring sides are in any given conflict.  Indeed, misunderstanding the concept of “rationality” is a universal problem among foreign policy analysts – I have not seen one analyst other than myself ever use “rational” in the correct way used by game theorist statisticians.  Maybe this should be blamed on the fact game theory is a mathematical field beyond the scope of our innumerate punditocracy, as all mathematical fields are to them starting with basic addition and subtraction.  But the pundits all assure you they were “taught how to think” by their liberal arts “education”.

Nevertheless, Adams is the second best active policy analyst in the world (second only to myself), and it does no good to public debate for him to spin his wheels going nowhere.

Allow me to walk you all through what Adams is saying and why game theory says he’s on the wrong course.

Continue reading “The Koran & Torah According to Scott Adams”