2016 Election Predictions

Unless something really strange happens, by 10 or 11 PM EST on Tuesday we should know who will be the next President of the United States. I'd like to raise an issue which is related to the post I did on the last election. I didn't originate this point but I've made it before. Let's say there are four candidates. Let's call them Crazy Man, Corporate Stooge, Hippy Dippy and Weed Man. If you vote for Hippy Dippy, none of the other three candidates get your vote. Hippy Dippy gets one vote. If on the other hand you decide to vote for Weed Man because like Peter Tosh you think it's time to legalize it, then again none of the other candidates get your vote. But Weed Man gets one vote. Now Crazy Man and Corporate Stooge may have much larger followings then the other two candidates. They and their supporters may hope that you don't understand math. They will say that since one of them is going to win the Presidency you shouldn't waste your vote and vote for Hippy Dippy/Weed Man because a vote for one of those people is a vote for their opponent. This is not true.The only way that Crazy Man or Corporate Stooge get a vote from you is if you place a check by their name. The point here is that your vote and your reasons for casting it are yours and yours alone. The only wasted vote is a vote which is not cast according to your conscience, values, analysis and political interests. You have no obligation to vote for a candidate who is not your best choice. Don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise. The amount of vitriol which the larger parties and their supporters spew onto smaller parties and their voters is amazing. Here's a thought. If you must insult or bully people into voting for your preferred choice, maybe your choice isn't that great. It's always the right thing to do to vote for your preferred candidate regardless of their chance at victory. I couldn't vote in 1984 but most adults I knew voted for the Democrat Walter Mondale even though they doubted he'd win. Mondale not only didn't win he led the Democratic Party to an apocalyptic election night massacre that made the Red Wedding look like a minor after dinner squabble and caused Michael Corleone to urge mercy. 

But if you believed in certain values Mondale was your man and you voted for him. You didn't say "Oh he can't win so let's vote for Reagan". No. Stick with your conscience and values no matter what. You get one vote just like everyone else. Vote for the candidate who best meets your values, worldview and criteria.
Although the race has tightened I still think that Clinton will win. The Democratic Party nationally has many paths to 270 electoral votes. Thanks to demographic changes in the electorate and conservative intransigence on various issues, the Republican Party has a very narrow path to victory. Clinton would have to collapse completely in the next 48 hours (get caught on tape spewing racial slurs, sneer about stupid people voting Republican, joke about starting a war with Russia, or something similar) for her floor to fall below 205 electoral votes. It is possible that Trump's appeal to white ethno-nationalism and economic nationalism and anti-pc will bring out the "missing" white voters in the Upper Midwest and Appalachia but I still don't think there are enough of those voters for Trump to win all of the states he'd have to win.

So I'm betting that Clinton wins 290-248. Her advantages in the densely populated East Coast states due to the demise of the Northeastern Republicans combined with the loss of California are ultimately too much for Trump to overcome. Trump needs to flip a "blue" state or two in the Upper Midwest, win Pennsylvania, or steal back North Carolina and win in Florida. That's a tough assignment. We'll see who's smiling on Tuesday night. Whoever wins on Tuesday, about 45% of the country is going to be angry and possibly surprised. We live in interesting times.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/jKkGX

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

The Janitor's prediction for tomorrow (see below).  I think she ekes out a narrow victory in Nevada due to the heavy Latino vote who Trump has unwisely incentivized to vote against him.  She holds on to New Hampshire's 4 points, but I think she loses the battleground states of Ohio and probably North Carolina, although I was conflicted on North Carolina due to the Black vote there which could push her over the edge.  It's certainly one of the closer states and is currently tracking on 538 as 51.6% Trump, 48.4% Hillary and appears to be holding steady for Trump.  Similar situation in Florida but unlike Shady, I think Hillary pulls out a win in Florida.  It went for Obama in '08 and again in '12 and the demographics have only gotten increasingly more diverse since then.  Iowa, which is a 90+ percent White state, easily goes for Trump, while Pennsylvania continues to be "fools gold" for Republicans and remains Blue in the Hillary column.  So I think Hillary takes it 308 to 230:

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

Old Guru's prediction:

I think Hilary wins Florida, which means Trump’s path to 270 dwindles to zero. I think that although there is a large Cuban bloc that supports the GOP, the group is not big enough to match the influx of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans that Trump has turned off. I think New Hampshire goes red this time. Obama won the state in 2012 by about 5% but I think Clinton has taken enough of a beating in that state that Trump might squeak that one out. I think North Carolina goes to Trump. Obama lost the state in 2012 and I don’t think the black vote there is energized enough to pull it out for Hillary.

Grand Central's Prediction:

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

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

Music Reviews: Fever

"Fever" is a Blues/R&B song which was written by the African-American singers/songwriters Eddie Cooley and Otis Blackwell. Both men had more success in the music business writing songs for other people than they did as performers under their own names. Blackwell in particular was a relatively unheralded early songwriter of many rock-n-roll hits. Elvis Presley considered Blackwell to be a favorite songwriter. Some of the Blackwell written Presley hits include such songs as "All Shook Up", "Don't Be Cruel",  and "Return to Sender". Blackwell also co-wrote "Great Balls of Fire" for Jerry Lee Lewis. "Fever" first was a hit for teen African-American singer Little Willie John in 1956. Afterwards, as was often the practice in those days and today, it was covered to even greater acclaim by Euro-American singer Peggy Lee. Lee's sultry voiced version turned up the sex appeal although ironically Lee dropped some of the original lyrics because they were thought to be too risque for the white market. Much as would latter happen with Aretha Franklin's version of Otis Redding's "Respect", most people probably know Lee's version of the song instead of Little Willie John's. There have been many different singers who have done versions of the song including Madonna, La Lupe, Beyonce and Buddy Guy. I like Little Willie John's version best although Buddy Guy's overwrought James Brown approved take on the song is certainly worthwhile listening. All of the good versions of the song, regardless of who is interpreting it, capture the utterly irrational and insistent nature of love and lust. People do things that they otherwise wouldn't do and may later regret under those influences. When that part of our brain is fully engaged insanity or fever may be the best way of describing the experience. Little Willie John was from Detroit. Despite only standing 5'4" (hence the nickname) Little Willie John was a pugnacious fellow with a quick temper who rarely backed down from fights. He died at age 30 in prison in the late sixties where he was serving time on manslaughter charges. A drunk 6'2 "fan" punched Little Willie John in the mouth. Little Willie retaliated by stabbing his assailant to death.

Cheryl Mills, Corruption, Infrastructure and Sweatshops

If there were a generic Republican who was running for President and we learned that this person had not only assisted foreign companies in setting up sweatshops in third world countries but also that this person's top advisor was doing the same while they were on the government dime many people would have an issue with that. Some people have argued and really believe that sweatshop labor is just what third world countries need to bootstrap themselves into prosperity. Other people argue that no one ever got rich providing slave labor for corporations. In my view the second view is closer to being correct. The business model simply doesn't allow for that. So it's a fair question as to why Clinton lawyer, advisor and former government employee Cheryl Mills has been helping a low wage textile firm to set up shop in Haiti while simultaneously using the company's expertise to pursue her own low wage business dreams in Africa and the Caribbean. 

As chief of staff and counselor to Hillary Clinton at the State Department, Cheryl D. Mills worked ceaselessly to help a South Korean garment maker open a factory in Haiti, the centerpiece of United States government efforts to jump-start the island nation’s economy after the 2010 earthquake. Ms. Mills took the lead on smoothing the way for the company, Sae-A Trading, which secured millions of dollars in incentives to make its Haiti investment more attractive, despite criticism of its labor record elsewhere. When she presided over the project’s unveiling in September 2010, she introduced Sae-A’s chairman, Woong-ki Kim, as the most important person at the ceremony, which included Mrs. Clinton and the Haitian prime minister. Mr. Kim would later become important to Ms. Mills in a far more personal way — as a financial backer of a company she started after leaving the State Department in 2013. The company, BlackIvy Group, is pursuing infrastructure projects in Tanzania and Ghana, the only African nations in the “Partnership for Growth,” an Obama administration initiative that Mrs. Clinton helped introduce that promotes investment in developing countries. 

Since teaming up through BlackIvy, Ms. Mills and Mr. Kim have maintained close business ties, appearing together last year for the opening of a new Sae-A factory in Costa Rica where they cut the ribbon alongside Costa Rica’s president, Luis Guillermo Solís. In Africa, representatives of the United States Agency for International Development have consulted with BlackIvy and Sae-A about efforts to expand the textile trade in Ghana, where BlackIvy says the country’s 23-cents-an-hour minimum wage “compares favorably” to higher wages in China, Bangladesh and Vietnam. 

Federal officials are barred from using their positions to negotiate future employment or exchange services for something of value, and no evidence has emerged to suggest that occurred with BlackIvy. Both Ms. Mills and Mr. Kim deny that his investment was influenced by the substantial assistance she provided his company while serving as Mrs. Clinton’s right hand at the State Department. 

BlackIvy’s rationale did not sway labor advocates like Scott Nova, the executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, who had criticized the Haiti project as a misguided American relief effort that glossed over Sae-A’s labor-relations history. “When you urge garment manufacturers producing in countries like Bangladesh, where wages are far too low for workers to adequately support their families, to move production to countries with even lower wages, it undercuts the efforts of apparel workers across the Global South to persuade governments, employers and major apparel brands to lift wages to a decent level,” Mr. Nova said. FULL STORY

If this sort of thing were going on in China or Russia or anywhere in the Middle East then we'd point and laugh and talk about those funny foreigners and their funny accents and their cultures of corruption or crony capitalism or so on and so forth. But it's happening right here, right now. And this is not a partisan problem. Both parties do this, have done it and will continue to do it. The only party difference may be which industries are favored. But that's not really a difference is it. I don't mind if government workers are well paid. I do mind if they are using government contacts to set themselves up for lucrative private business in the future. I do mind if they are using government power to assist private industry with the unspoken expectation that they'll get a little something something as soon as possible. I do mind if US government agencies are helping to outsource labor to cheaper markets.There is nothing illegal with what Mills has done but frankly that's the problem. Government policy should be based on what's best for the people of the United States, not what is best for a well connected cabal of wealthy lawyers, financiers, bureaucrats, corporations and lobbyists. The fact this group's membership may be more diverse than previous years is hardly something that should make any difference to the rest of us. I don't see that government assisted searching for sweatshop labor to make Mills and her friends richer does all that much for me. Black faces in high places means nothing if we have the same patterns of exploitation. This sort of both sides do it malarkey is exactly why the "tear the temple down" feeling is spreading in different ways on both the left and right. 

Michigan Trump Supporter Pulls Gun on Kids

The problem with extreme partisanship is that people can no longer distinguish between a group of people who do not agree with you on some important issues and a group of people who are evil and need to be violently suppressed, expelled or exterminated. This problem is something that impacts both putative sides in American politics. There is one side that is much more likely to be armed however, and when you start mixing politics and guns usually bad things happen. I can understand the sense of violation experienced when someone steals something from your porch or commits an act of vandalism on your property. However you can't threaten deadly force in retaliation. You certainly can't do that when the alleged offenders are children. And it's that much worse when the people you threaten aren't even the people who committed the offense. Then you're not a man standing up to protect your property or your family. You're just a hothead who wants to get revenge.
An Allen Park man upset that his campaign sign was destroyed, grabbed his gun and now he's facing charges for pointing that weapon at children. It appeared Michael Kubek wasn't home Thursday night after being released from lockup for allegedly holding six kids at gunpoint at about 8 p.m. Saturday night.
FOX 2: "Did the kids seem scared?"
"Yes, yes," said a neighbor.

The neighbor, who did not want to be identified, said she was spooked too. The News-Herald reports Kubek made the kids sit in the grass at the corner of Pennsylvania and Sterling in Allen Park as they stared down the barrel of his gun. Kubek was fuming because he thought they destroyed his Trump lawn sign.
FOX 2: "What was he saying to them?"

"He was using very profane language," the neighbor said. "Real bad language."
Kubek reportedly told police he neither saw or had proof the kids wrecked his sign, he only heard them outside of his house, saw the sign ruined and the kids running. He reportedly told police he showed the kids the business end of his gun because he felt threatened and outnumbered and his pistol was unloaded. Kubek is now facing six counts of assault with a dangerous weapon. He got out of jail on a $5,000, 10-percent bond. Legal experts say that's pretty low considering the circumstances.

When you consider that Michigan is among the states that doesn't prohibit guns at polling places Tuesday could be very interesting indeed. 


 

Movie Reviews: The Infiltrator

The Infiltrator
directed by Brad Furman

Sometimes I wonder about the employee vetting that is done by criminal organizations. It's true that that a middle manager in the organized crime syndicate GREED Inc. can't exactly call up his opposite number in FEAR LLC, and ask if the applicant sitting in front of him really did spend 4 years working in FEAR's murders and executions group and a productive fourteen months overseeing money laundering, import export tax fraud and various other white collar crimes in the Buenos Aires branch. FEAR likely doesn't keep the sort of hiring records and performance reviews that would be necessary to verify such claims. And FEAR might have little interest in sharing personnel information with GREED. All the same, in a milieu where trust is at a premium and various agencies are looking to put you in prison for utterly ridiculous amounts of time, I would think that if you were a criminal you'd want to make doggone sure that the people you're working with were also criminals and not say, U.S. Customs agents. So if someone gives you an Italian name and claims to be connected with certain important people in the New York underworld, wouldn't you try to find out if said person is telling the truth before you bring them into your inner circle and start doing business with them? Well maybe. But on the other hand a lot of criminals tend to be stupid, greedy and very short sighted. That's part of the reason that they are criminals in the first place. And drug use doesn't help. In the 1980s Florida based U.S. Customs Agent Bob Mazur (Bryan Cranston) is at the top of his game. During the day he busts bad guys. In the evening he goes home to his supportive wife Evelyn (Julie Aubry) and their two kids. There's a rather significant difference between Bob's kind helpful nature at home and his much sharper acerbic persona at work. That's probably not different than anyone who has to work though regardless of what their job entails.

Michigan: Michigan State Game

Michigan State has beaten Michigan in seven out of the last eight football games they've played. This has gotten Michigan's attention, perhaps even more so than the number one rivalry with Ohio State. In 2007 an ill-advised, albeit accurate off the cuff comment by former Michigan running back Mike Hart describing Michigan State as "little brother" enraged MSU players, coaches and fans. MSU head coach Mark Dantonio skillfully used that description to play up MSU's sense of resentment and puncture what some saw as Michigan's sense of entitlement. Since 2008, MSU has routinely taken Michigan to the woodshed and given them a whupping. With one or two exceptions the games were not as competitive as the final scores indicated. MSU had better players: bigger, faster, stronger, smarter and meaner. And MSU had the better coach. Former Michigan coaches Rich Rodriguez and Brady Hoke were mostly hapless against the sharper Dantonio.  For eight years I've had to hear it from relatives or friends who attended Michigan State. Eight long years. Finally the powers that be at my alma mater noticed that the former rivalry game was on the verge of becoming irrelevant. Dantonio's constant jibes probably helped with that process. Michigan hired former San Francisco Forty Niners (and Stanford) coach and U-M alum Jim Harbaugh, making him the highest paid coach in college football.  In his second year Harbaugh currently has the undefeated Michigan Wolverines ranked at #2 in the nation.  Although he has yet to beat the Spartans, Harbaugh has turned around the Michigan football program more quickly than anticipated. Meanwhile, after a long run of success the Spartans have fallen on hard times. They are winless in the Big Ten and have lost five games in a row, including to such powderpuff programs as Maryland and Northwestern. Although nothing is sure in college football (remember MSU beat Michigan last year on the very last play of the game) this year's game between Michigan and Michigan State should see Michigan prevail. 

But I don't want to just prevail. No, no, no that would not do. Not by a long shot.

I want to stomp MSU into whimpering submission. I want to run up the score. I want to go for two after every touchdown. I want to burn down East Lansing and salt the smoldering remains, speaking metaphorically of course. I want to beat MSU so badly that children yet to be born speak in hushed whispers of the 2016 massacre. So hopefully we'll do that this Saturday and start the long overdue process of restoring U-M to its rightful place as Kings of the North and Champions of the West.

Mary J. Blige, Divorce and Money

I don't really keep up with Mary J. Blige. I am not a fan of her singing style. But I wouldn't deny that she has talent and has put the work in to get where she is in life. Like a lot of different people in life she's come to the end of her road with her special someone. It doesn't matter who you are or how much money you make it's got to hurt when, to paraphrase Sam Kinison, your significant other comes home and tells you that s/he doesn't want to share anything with you any more and must drink a six pack each night to keep from decapitating you. Such is life though. If you live long enough that or something similar to that will happen to you. Now if a couple married young and worked and sacrificed and supported each other as they built a fast food franchise that morphed into a real estate empire that purchased a bank that later took over a professional sports team then they really did create something together. If they split in their later years, each person should get 50% of the value of all their businesses. Or if not 50% it should be pretty doggone close. But when one person in a marriage has the job of making all of the money and the other person has the job of spending all of the money I don't think there should be an even split of marital assets upon divorce. I think that just because someone once did something kind or ran through walls for their partner doesn't mean that he or she needs to keep doing that once the thrill is gone. And although I do tend to be more traditional in some aspects I feel this way regardless of the sex of the partner seeking to be taken care of post-marriage. There are lots of things that men and women do for each other when they're in love that are no longer done once the love is gone. That's just human nature. I don't think you can change that. I don't think that you can or rather I don't think that you should force people to continue doing those things with someone that they currently hate. Kendu Isaacs, who is being divorced by Mary J. Blige, is requesting a reported $129,319 in monthly spousal support. 

Kendu Isaacs lived a life of luxury during his marriage to Mary J. Blige, and he is determined to keep it going. Earlier this year, Blige filed for divorce from her husband of 12 years, and on Monday, Isaacs asked a judge to grant him temporary spousal support. But Isaacs wasn’t just Blige’s husband; he was also her manager—until she fired him after filing for divorce. Isaacs claims that Blige made between $1.5 million and $5.1 million over the last two years. Isaacs also insists that although a prenuptial agreement was signed, he did so without having a lawyer present. LINK

As you might imagine the former Mrs. Isaacs doesn't quite see the logic of her dear hubby's request. No. Not at all.

Mary J. Blige starts her concerts by displaying images of tabloid headlines covering her estranged husband's request for nearly $130,000 in spousal support in an attempt to embarrass him, her ex claims in their on-going divorce battle. Martin 'Kendu' Isaacs, 49, believes the R&B songstress is on a 'public campaign to destroy' his reputation, as well as 'shame' and 'financially suffocate him'. The singer 'opens her show by displaying various images of tabloids pertaining to this dissolution in an attempt to paint herself as the victim and Mr. Isaacs as the villain', according to court documents obtained by DailyMail.com. LINK

The couple has been married since 2003 so I don't think you could automatically claim that this was a short term fling where the non-famous person was just trying to grab the famous person's money. All the same though I would, were a judge, have a great deal of difficulty accepting anyone of sound mind and body claiming his ex-wife owed him $130K/month because he got used to the lifestyle she provided. Women may be the gender that's stereotypically more likely to do this but in my view it's wrong no matter which gender does it. Isaacs should get a small settlement because that's what the law allows. He should not get anything approaching $130,000/month. He's grown. He can and should take care of himself. If I were the judge I would give him one hundred thousand total and a CD of his wife's greatest hits. I don't think that divorce should be something that enriches anyone. If I were running this case Mr. Isaacs would just have to learn to live on his own abilities and talents. And I would say the same to women trying to do what Isaacs is doing.