So the first presidential debate is over, here are my thoughts:
1) In short, I don't think this debate really changes the opinions of those who had a preference coming in to the debate. A Hillary supporter will believe that Hillary showed greater command on the issues, the Donald is shady and prejudiced man and has a better temperament suited for a president. A Donald support will believe the Donald made the case of change from many years of Hillary's incompetence and the establishment in general and showed the country that he can be seen as plausible president. In my myopic opinion, I thought that while Hillary made more concise points on policy, she discounted that by her references to fact checkers and personal attacks on the Donald. The Donald, while staying on message that Hillary has made many bad decisions over many years, discounted that advantage by being overly defensively about charges made at him, especially about the Birther issue and his tax returns (do we really want our time used during the debate to hear the Donald talk about his assets?). So in the end, I don't really thing it'll move the needle too much one way or another.
2) Watching this debate really illuminates the cultural differences between blue collar and white collar life in this country. When I watching this debate, I was trying to think of watching it in two prisms. One is how I as a white collar professional would view the debate and the other is how I would as a blue collar worker growing up working in a restaurant (and occasionally still working in one) would view the debate. I find the contrast quite stark.
- White Collar - I would find the Donald's language and body language quite sloppy and immature. Outside of some points on trade and tax policy, there was a glaring lack of sophistication in his policy knowledge. His temperament when being challenged by the moderator and Hillary shows his lack of meekness and lack of qualification to be president. In contrast, Hillary showed greater command for the policy issues and greater composure. However, her personal attacks on the Donald were quite off putting, especially when she vituperated against him. But all in all, Hillary won the debate on points and composure.
- Blue Collar - I would find the Donald's language is simple and blunt in talking about the failure of the elites like Hillary to address the needs of everyday folks that I know. The Donald is right to talk about how elites like Hillary live by a different set of rules than most American. He's also right to show that Hillary has made many mistakes that have adversely affected America. How dare Hillary assert that I'm a bigoted person based on her life of living in the upper crusts of society. Now while the Donald's lack of transparency regarding his tax returns is troubling, I see that he really is talking about the issues important to me.
3) The moderator, Lester Holt, has become a lighting rod for the Donald's supporters for the way he prodded the Donald on issues such as stop and frisk, his tax returns, the Birther issue and his support on the Iraq war. Plus, Holt never pressed Hillary on the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi nor her handling of classified information. I didn't think that Holt did anything I didn't expect would happen and he does have a tough job. However, Holt's actions is probably a gift to the Donald, who can continue to use the media's treatment of him to gin up the high enthusiasm of his supporters. Perhaps that's why he was winning so many online post-debate polls.
4) I have the say that the body language of both candidates left much to be desired. The Donald's frequent sniffles (he denies he was), eye rolls and just overall looks of disgust of whatever Hillary was saying was noteworthy. However, Hillary's smiling and smirking, made more obvious by excessive makeup and lipstick, made it appear that she was quite condescending to the debate and whatever the Donald has to say. In fact, the small "shimmy" reaction to one of the Donald's answers made that attitude even more obvious. Each side I think lost some points through how they looked when they were not talking.
So there it is, my post-debate reaction. I don't think this will show a real shift in the trajectory of the race since events happen so quickly and the spin machines are running at full blast right now. But it makes the next two debates much more intriguing in my mind.
However, I have decided that I will be voting early this year. I'll let you know how that goes.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Sunday, September 25, 2016
Quick Musings
I have a few quick items:
- The first presidential debate is tomorrow night. Audience estimates have been huge: some have estimated over 100 million viewers, which would be Super Bowl levels. I plan to watch this debate eating popcorn purchased from Candyland, a great downtown St. Paul establishment. I will put forward my reactions to the debate shortly after it occurs, but I thought I'd give a a few thoughts on how I think each candidate, Hillary and the Donald, want themselves to be seen as leaders by the electorate, not my own view of them. A myopic opinion for sure, but this is based on my observations:
Hillary - Competent, experience leader in challenging times is what I think her campaign is presenting. Working in the policy realm over multiple decades in issues such as children's education ("It takes a village") to combating terror (in the room to see the assassination of Osama bin Laden), Hillary is well prepared for this job. If you want a leader that can keep a steady hand on the wheel in stormy seas, Hillary is the one.
Donald - Someone who gets things done. Having to take on a variety of situations in business, the Donald has generally succeeded in getting things to work out well for him. He may not know all the variables going in, but he's able to decipher the information quickly and come out with the best possible solution. As President, the Donald would not necessarily have a strong preference on how something gets done, but his success as a negotiator will allow him to get things done that will be beneficial for America. He'll do this by have an initial position of what his desired end result, then taking in information from a variety of sources and negotiating a deal to get as close to that result as possible. I recall taking a class in business school on negotiation, it's quite the skill to develop. The Donald is confident his negotiation skills will get what he wants done.
So the key will be after the first debate, who will be able to project his/her wanted image the best to the electorate. Stay tuned.
- Other piece of news is that I'll be in Toronto the second half of this week traveling with my mother. I look forward to it. I will give a report when I have a chance.
- The first presidential debate is tomorrow night. Audience estimates have been huge: some have estimated over 100 million viewers, which would be Super Bowl levels. I plan to watch this debate eating popcorn purchased from Candyland, a great downtown St. Paul establishment. I will put forward my reactions to the debate shortly after it occurs, but I thought I'd give a a few thoughts on how I think each candidate, Hillary and the Donald, want themselves to be seen as leaders by the electorate, not my own view of them. A myopic opinion for sure, but this is based on my observations:
Hillary - Competent, experience leader in challenging times is what I think her campaign is presenting. Working in the policy realm over multiple decades in issues such as children's education ("It takes a village") to combating terror (in the room to see the assassination of Osama bin Laden), Hillary is well prepared for this job. If you want a leader that can keep a steady hand on the wheel in stormy seas, Hillary is the one.
Donald - Someone who gets things done. Having to take on a variety of situations in business, the Donald has generally succeeded in getting things to work out well for him. He may not know all the variables going in, but he's able to decipher the information quickly and come out with the best possible solution. As President, the Donald would not necessarily have a strong preference on how something gets done, but his success as a negotiator will allow him to get things done that will be beneficial for America. He'll do this by have an initial position of what his desired end result, then taking in information from a variety of sources and negotiating a deal to get as close to that result as possible. I recall taking a class in business school on negotiation, it's quite the skill to develop. The Donald is confident his negotiation skills will get what he wants done.
So the key will be after the first debate, who will be able to project his/her wanted image the best to the electorate. Stay tuned.
- Other piece of news is that I'll be in Toronto the second half of this week traveling with my mother. I look forward to it. I will give a report when I have a chance.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Election Musings
Quite the week huh:
- I really have not much to say about the happenings of the past week. I'll just say it had a bit of everything from Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" comment, the Donald advocating for expansion of social programs and tax cuts, the "Birther" controversy (and the Donald trolling the media about it) and now acts of violence that the media and/or public officials call "intentional acts" of "potential acts of terror." In short, it appears the Donald has the momentum of in the race currently, with his supporters showing much greater enthusiasm than Hillary's campaign. But the next inflection point is the Presidential debate next Monday. I think a few will watch that one.
- But I really would like to talk about what I think will be the big key in this year's election: the makeup of the voting electorate that actually votes. When examining the results of the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections, the makeup of the electorate was very significant in the result of the election. Just look at the makeup of the electorate in terms of eligible voters over the last three elections (courtesy of Brookings):
- I really have not much to say about the happenings of the past week. I'll just say it had a bit of everything from Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" comment, the Donald advocating for expansion of social programs and tax cuts, the "Birther" controversy (and the Donald trolling the media about it) and now acts of violence that the media and/or public officials call "intentional acts" of "potential acts of terror." In short, it appears the Donald has the momentum of in the race currently, with his supporters showing much greater enthusiasm than Hillary's campaign. But the next inflection point is the Presidential debate next Monday. I think a few will watch that one.
- But I really would like to talk about what I think will be the big key in this year's election: the makeup of the voting electorate that actually votes. When examining the results of the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections, the makeup of the electorate was very significant in the result of the election. Just look at the makeup of the electorate in terms of eligible voters over the last three elections (courtesy of Brookings):
In short, a 4 percent shift between white and minority voters between 2004 and 2012 made a big difference in who had an edge in a national election at the outset. For example, there was about 129 million votes cast in the 2012 election It could been argued that since Mitt Romney won 59 percent of the white vote in 2012, he would have won another 3 million votes if the electorate was divided up as it was 2004. He would have probably still lost, but the electoral college would have much closer (Mitt probably would have won Florida, for instance).
However, these changes in the electorate shouldn't just be seen in isolation, we also need to consider who is actually turning out. The result here is also quite telling.
Perhaps it's due to the "Obama effect" of increasing enthusiasm for minority voters, especially blacks, but it's clear that the increase in turnout of minority voters combined with the notable decrease of white voters contributed greatly in President Obama's success.
Finally, we just don't consider how the electorate is set up and how many of them racially show up, but we also need to consider the margins each racial group supports a certain candidate. Below is the Democratic vote margins by racial group.
So based on the three graphics, it's a clear story. Over past three elections, minorities are a growing part of the electorate, they are more enthused to vote and they are voting in growing proportions for Democrats. So is there any question why President Obama was so successful?
What does this mean for this election? It means that there is a clear reason why the Donald is trying to gin up the white blue collar vote as well as trying to gain some traction amongst black voters. Increase the proportion whites are of the electorate, increase the proportions he wins of them and decrease the margins of the largest minority group. Hillary, in contrast, is trying to boost minority turnout by playing up the idea that the Donald is a racially divisive figure. Politics is simple when you look at it analytically, isn't it?
- So here I have my electoral map as of today. I made no changes.
However, I'm feeling much more confident about the current map as I see more polling supporting it. My one observation this week is this: it's becoming clear that the Donald does not need to win Pennsylvania to win the Presidency. In fact, the Donald may want to pursue the route that George W. Bush took to win re-election in 2004:
While I currently don't see this scenario very likely, I can certainly see it as a possibility. the states in question (NM, CO, and VA) are certainly battleground states and could easily move in the Donald's column by election day. It's going to be a wild 7 weeks, that's all I can say.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Random Musings (with some policy)
A couple of short observations:
- In the past week, I learned the following via USA Today:
"After eight lean years, Americans finally got fatter paychecks in 2015 — their first significant hike since 2007 and the biggest since record keeping began in 1968. The U.S. median household income rose 5.2% to $56,516, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday."
Obviously, folks making more money is a sign of greater economic vitality. However, thinking that such results validates economic policies, domestically or internationally derived, would be an interesting discussion point that I am skeptical in believing. Take what was brought up later in that article:
"However, the income of the typical U.S. home still hasn't managed to rise above where it was before the last recession. In 2007, median household income — the point at which half would make more, while the other half would make less — was $57,423, adjusted for inflation. And incomes peaked in 1999 at $57,909, also adjusted for inflation, the bureau says in its report, "Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015. "
So according the Census, real incomes (i.e. incomes adjusted for inflation) have decreased over the last 8 years. So on the median, (not the average) households are making less income than they did 8 years ago. This suggest the economy has been not been great for the middle class over the last decade. A healthy middle generally is seen as a sign of a mature and stable economy.
So the question for me is "why" median incomes are decreasing. Upon some initial analysis, I've come up with two main observations of why this could be: (1) Smaller households; (2) stagnant wage growth; and (3) folks working less. Let's address these one by one:
Smaller households
Smaller households generally create greater downward pressure on wages since that means there are more units of measurement and more workers are earning at lower wage levels than higher wage levels. Take this trend chart of the growth of one-person households over time:
So in short, folks are not improving their standard of living on average. As you can see, this has been an issue for decades, but really illuminates itself when median households are declining.
Folks Working Less
The logic here is simple: working less means less earnings. So taking that into account, look at the relationship between median household income and average hours worked over time (data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics):
- In the past week, I learned the following via USA Today:
"After eight lean years, Americans finally got fatter paychecks in 2015 — their first significant hike since 2007 and the biggest since record keeping began in 1968. The U.S. median household income rose 5.2% to $56,516, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday."
Obviously, folks making more money is a sign of greater economic vitality. However, thinking that such results validates economic policies, domestically or internationally derived, would be an interesting discussion point that I am skeptical in believing. Take what was brought up later in that article:
"However, the income of the typical U.S. home still hasn't managed to rise above where it was before the last recession. In 2007, median household income — the point at which half would make more, while the other half would make less — was $57,423, adjusted for inflation. And incomes peaked in 1999 at $57,909, also adjusted for inflation, the bureau says in its report, "Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015. "
So according the Census, real incomes (i.e. incomes adjusted for inflation) have decreased over the last 8 years. So on the median, (not the average) households are making less income than they did 8 years ago. This suggest the economy has been not been great for the middle class over the last decade. A healthy middle generally is seen as a sign of a mature and stable economy.
So the question for me is "why" median incomes are decreasing. Upon some initial analysis, I've come up with two main observations of why this could be: (1) Smaller households; (2) stagnant wage growth; and (3) folks working less. Let's address these one by one:
Smaller households
Smaller households generally create greater downward pressure on wages since that means there are more units of measurement and more workers are earning at lower wage levels than higher wage levels. Take this trend chart of the growth of one-person households over time:
In short, there are notably more one-person households than even at the beginning of the century and it continues to be a higher proportion of total households. Hence since there are more workers at lower wage levels than higher ones, it would follow that wages would trend down.
Stagnant Wages
When I talk about stagnant wages, I am talking about real wages (inflation-adjusted). Take this chart of actual wages and real wages (i.e. purchasing power) over time.
Folks Working Less
The logic here is simple: working less means less earnings. So taking that into account, look at the relationship between median household income and average hours worked over time (data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics):
Quite the strong correlation, isn't it? The stability of these figures is very consistent. Average hours worked per week stays within a fairly tight range, but we're currently working notably fewer hours now than we were 10 years ago, and that makes a difference in how much income one is earning.
We certainly could have extensive policy discussions on how this could be addressed and the causes of these trends. However, I'm just pointing out some flash points to initially examine when looking at this societal issue.
- I learned this week that the IPhone 7 has been released. I'm an IPhone 6 user and generally have been pleased with the product. Well, when the IPhone 7 came out I was asked if I wanted to pay the hundreds of dollars to upgrade. Well, when I looked into it I found the following review that sums up my thoughts:
I have to say, while having a water resistant phone is nice to have, it doesn't provide as strong as a compelling case to actually buy one. Also, I like to plug in my phone into my auxiliary outlet in my car to play my Bible readings and podcasts, the IPhone 7 eliminated that option. So I really don't think I'll purchase one.
Till next time.
Friday, September 9, 2016
Election Musings
- We're about 60 days away from the election and things are a changing:
- It's clear to me that the past 30 days have seen quite the shift in the narrative. A month ago we're talking about the Donald's lack of temperament in going after killed Gold Star soldier's families and Hillary riding high with double digit poll leads after the Democratic National Convention. The narrative was what new gaffe the Donald would do next and could he actually show any ounce of discipline on the campaign trail. Projections were driving towards a Obama vs. McCain type blowout if not worse.
Well, times have changed since then. The Donald changed around the top brass of his campaign with a mix of Nationalist activists, campaign vets and polling specialists. This new team has convinced the Donald to use a teleprompter and Voila!, the Donald has suddenly become a pretty disciplined campaigner the past month. As this is going on, the drip, drip, drip of Hillary's email revelations and her FBI testimony with various explanations of her actions have really brought any momentum she had after the DNC to a screeching halt.
The past two weeks are a microcosm of what has happened. As Hillary is fighting off accusations on her veracity and health while saying the Donald is dangerous. The Donald is having a presser with the Mexican President, giving speeches in inner city schools and churches and talking about issues of immigration, national defense and school choice. These tactics has increased his support among moderate GOPers and independents. So it really should be no surprise that the polls are tightening. Last month, I said that while I thought Hillary had an 80/20 chance of winning this race, but the only reason it isn't higher is because it's Hillary, who's not known for her campaigning skills. Well, we're seeing that her campaigning skills are not inspiring confidence right now.
- As the polls tighten, the map is changing. I'm thinking the momentum is with the Donald right now. I see some of the states he needs to win, namely OH, FL and Maine 2nd District are really moving towards his direction. This is reflected to my current map.
- It's clear to me that the past 30 days have seen quite the shift in the narrative. A month ago we're talking about the Donald's lack of temperament in going after killed Gold Star soldier's families and Hillary riding high with double digit poll leads after the Democratic National Convention. The narrative was what new gaffe the Donald would do next and could he actually show any ounce of discipline on the campaign trail. Projections were driving towards a Obama vs. McCain type blowout if not worse.
Well, times have changed since then. The Donald changed around the top brass of his campaign with a mix of Nationalist activists, campaign vets and polling specialists. This new team has convinced the Donald to use a teleprompter and Voila!, the Donald has suddenly become a pretty disciplined campaigner the past month. As this is going on, the drip, drip, drip of Hillary's email revelations and her FBI testimony with various explanations of her actions have really brought any momentum she had after the DNC to a screeching halt.
The past two weeks are a microcosm of what has happened. As Hillary is fighting off accusations on her veracity and health while saying the Donald is dangerous. The Donald is having a presser with the Mexican President, giving speeches in inner city schools and churches and talking about issues of immigration, national defense and school choice. These tactics has increased his support among moderate GOPers and independents. So it really should be no surprise that the polls are tightening. Last month, I said that while I thought Hillary had an 80/20 chance of winning this race, but the only reason it isn't higher is because it's Hillary, who's not known for her campaigning skills. Well, we're seeing that her campaigning skills are not inspiring confidence right now.
- As the polls tighten, the map is changing. I'm thinking the momentum is with the Donald right now. I see some of the states he needs to win, namely OH, FL and Maine 2nd District are really moving towards his direction. This is reflected to my current map.
So my assessment, buckle up!
This Week's Musings
The week that was, a couple thoughts:
- Sunday is the 15 year anniversary of 9/11. I remember where I was that day. I was a senior at Carleton College. I was heading down to work at the telecommunications office where my manager told me that two planes hit two World Trade Center buildings. I couldn't really digest that at first, but when I saw it on television, it hit me pretty quickly. The destruction, the sadness, the utter pain that I saw is something that I will never forget.
Since that time we've had a War on Terror that has waxed and waned. Whether or not we're gaining the upper hand in that battle is a discussion for another day. I'll just give you this myopic opinion. I think that through the balance of time and weariness many of us have forgot the impact of that day. We don't discuss it like we use to, we don't think about it like we use to and we certainly don't take it as somberly as we used to. Proof of this is a commercial that was recently broadcast at a Texas mattress store.
- Sunday is the 15 year anniversary of 9/11. I remember where I was that day. I was a senior at Carleton College. I was heading down to work at the telecommunications office where my manager told me that two planes hit two World Trade Center buildings. I couldn't really digest that at first, but when I saw it on television, it hit me pretty quickly. The destruction, the sadness, the utter pain that I saw is something that I will never forget.
Since that time we've had a War on Terror that has waxed and waned. Whether or not we're gaining the upper hand in that battle is a discussion for another day. I'll just give you this myopic opinion. I think that through the balance of time and weariness many of us have forgot the impact of that day. We don't discuss it like we use to, we don't think about it like we use to and we certainly don't take it as somberly as we used to. Proof of this is a commercial that was recently broadcast at a Texas mattress store.
The times are a changin, aren't they?
- Talking about changing times, I recently read a report of a research paper of Jean Twenge, professor of psychology at San Diego State University, which stated that while millennials are more politically polarized that the Gen Xers and Baby Boomers before them, they tend to identify to be more conservative than those generations at that same age. The data showed that, as entering college students, 23% of millennials identified as leaning far right, compared to 17% of Baby Boomers and 22% of Generation Xers.
If true, which I assume this has been empirically proven through rigorous research methods (10 million adults surveyed), one what wonder why this is important. Well, let me show you this chart of the US voting electorate based off the Pew Research Center:
In short, the Baby Boomers are slowly dying off, the Gen Xers are holding steady since all of their generation are in the electorate and the Millennials are quickly becoming the dominate force in the electorate. By the 2018 midterms, they will probably be the largest generation influencing American politics and public policy. So the big questions are twofold (1) Are the Millennials actually voting? (2) Are they going to vote according to what this study says they might? I guess we'll see soon enough.
My myopic opinion is that I'm not too sure if Millennial are not so much more conservative that those prior generations, but more libertarian. From my experience, Millennials are pretty socially liberal, but have a very high distrust of government. They want things done and they generally see government slow to act or unable to act correctly to address policy problems. But again that's my myopic opinion.
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Election Musing
If anything, this election is not dull:
I'll just say that Dr. Ben Carson should consider my church's protocol regarding use of electronic devices during service; a myopic opinion as well as suggestion.
- Hillary apparently has not really been seen much in August. She'll make a staged speech every couple weeks and then go on fundraising (a staggering $143 million in August). However, after starting the month in very strong position with leads as large as 15 percent in some national polls, her lead has shrunk substantially since then. The reason, the Donald has been able to change the focus of the campaign less towards the Donald and much more towards Hillary. The drip, drip, drip of the emails from both Hillary's private server, her connections with the Clinton Foundation while as Secretary of State and her lack of candor regarding her involvement in such matters have really started taking a toll on her image and electability. She's not exactly inspiring folks to vote for her at this moment.
The most interesting part of the latest news regarding the release of FBI summary notes (there is no audio) of their interview with Hillary was not that she didn't know that 'C' meant "classified" or she could not recall when she got security training, but that she had THIRTEEN ELECTRONIC DEVICES that were lost or destroyed after saying she only wanted to have a private email server to be able to use only one device. Apparently her rationale is that she only was using one device at a time, but how does that explain all those Blackberries and IPads destroyed with a hammer? Yikes.
Despite the latest news, I don't see any changes in the electoral map as I still see Hillary comfortably winning. However, I'm thinking more states will be in play for both sides that they didn't expect. For Hillary, I see states such as Michigan and Wisconsin coming more into play. Being one that visits NW Wisconsin about once a month, I can see the Donald gaining strength there currently. But for the Donald, he should start being concerned about states such as Georgia, Arizona and I've seen very close polls in South Carolina. In short, this race is still very fluid because since the states in play are very similar, changes in one state will probably effect other surrounding states very quickly. But here's the map:
Till next time....
- The Donald spent the week criss-crossing North America in quasi-international summits, black churches and large rallies talking about issues ranging from immigration to issues within America's inner cities. I thought his visit to Mexico City to visit with the Mexican President was largely a success. The visual of him standing side by side with a foreign leader of a country most consider as an important diplomatic relationship was very good for the Donald since it allowed folks to actually visualize him as a possible President doing presidential business.
However, the evening speech he made on immigration was very different, although policy wise it made much more sense than his past rhetoric. The Donald's policy was really an emphasis of enforcement first with vagueness on what to do with the remaining undocumented, yet nonviolent, immigrants. The idea of a deportation force coming in and deporting undocumented immigrants who have contributed to society for years just sounded like an expense and logistical nightmare waiting to happen. But the rally setting quite overshadowed the substance of the speech. I don't think it'll hurt him electorally as many think, but I don't think it'll gain him as much traction amongst moderate Republicans and independents as it could have if he gave the same address at a policy think tank.
Here's the most interesting visual of the campaign for me:
I'll just say that Dr. Ben Carson should consider my church's protocol regarding use of electronic devices during service; a myopic opinion as well as suggestion.
- Hillary apparently has not really been seen much in August. She'll make a staged speech every couple weeks and then go on fundraising (a staggering $143 million in August). However, after starting the month in very strong position with leads as large as 15 percent in some national polls, her lead has shrunk substantially since then. The reason, the Donald has been able to change the focus of the campaign less towards the Donald and much more towards Hillary. The drip, drip, drip of the emails from both Hillary's private server, her connections with the Clinton Foundation while as Secretary of State and her lack of candor regarding her involvement in such matters have really started taking a toll on her image and electability. She's not exactly inspiring folks to vote for her at this moment.
The most interesting part of the latest news regarding the release of FBI summary notes (there is no audio) of their interview with Hillary was not that she didn't know that 'C' meant "classified" or she could not recall when she got security training, but that she had THIRTEEN ELECTRONIC DEVICES that were lost or destroyed after saying she only wanted to have a private email server to be able to use only one device. Apparently her rationale is that she only was using one device at a time, but how does that explain all those Blackberries and IPads destroyed with a hammer? Yikes.
Despite the latest news, I don't see any changes in the electoral map as I still see Hillary comfortably winning. However, I'm thinking more states will be in play for both sides that they didn't expect. For Hillary, I see states such as Michigan and Wisconsin coming more into play. Being one that visits NW Wisconsin about once a month, I can see the Donald gaining strength there currently. But for the Donald, he should start being concerned about states such as Georgia, Arizona and I've seen very close polls in South Carolina. In short, this race is still very fluid because since the states in play are very similar, changes in one state will probably effect other surrounding states very quickly. But here's the map:
Till next time....
Saturday, September 3, 2016
Random Musings
Some thoughts from the past couple weeks:
- About a month ago, I learned that Target announced that sales over the April through June period were 7 percent below a year ago, with pessimistic outlook for the remainder of the year, which includes the Christmas period. Target also said that store traffic fell 2.2 percent below a year ago, which equates to about 5 million shoppers. However, as Target decides to build single-stall bathrooms to help implement it's transgender bathroom policy, CEO Brian Cornell states these results have very little to do with its transgender acceptance policy. While there are factors such as overall economy and product mix that probably have much to do with the decline, as one who's worked extensively in retail analytics, I don't know how Cornell can quantify the magnitude of the transgender policy on traffic and sales, unless they have figured a way to rigorously segment transgenders in their analysis, which I have never seen.
- I ran across the following blog post on the Reason blog this past week.
- About a month ago, I learned that Target announced that sales over the April through June period were 7 percent below a year ago, with pessimistic outlook for the remainder of the year, which includes the Christmas period. Target also said that store traffic fell 2.2 percent below a year ago, which equates to about 5 million shoppers. However, as Target decides to build single-stall bathrooms to help implement it's transgender bathroom policy, CEO Brian Cornell states these results have very little to do with its transgender acceptance policy. While there are factors such as overall economy and product mix that probably have much to do with the decline, as one who's worked extensively in retail analytics, I don't know how Cornell can quantify the magnitude of the transgender policy on traffic and sales, unless they have figured a way to rigorously segment transgenders in their analysis, which I have never seen.
- I ran across the following blog post on the Reason blog this past week.
"A professor at the University of Iowa has a problem with its sports mascot, Herky the Hawk: he looks too angry, and if delicate students are exposed to images of a fake scowling bird, they might just kill themselves.
Pediatrics Professor Resmiye Oral wrote to the athletic department to request that Herky be given a different expression. "Herky's angry, to say the least, faces conveying an invitation to aggressivity and even violence are not compatible with the verbal messages that we try to convey to and instill in our students and campus community," she wrote,according to The Iowa City Press-Citizen.
She later said that Herky's currenty expression is "against the nonviolent, all accepting, nondiscriminatory messages we are trying to convey through campus."
When I look at these claims, it makes me wonder what the level of political correctness we have on college campuses. A person in a mascot hawk suit is promoting belligerence amongst the student body? Why wasn't this brought up 25 years ago, when violent crime was notably higher than it is now?
- This past week I was able to go the "Great Minnesota Get Together," the Minnesota State Fair, two times. I enjoy going aspects of the State Fair: the people watch, seeing animals such as the state's largest boar (1200 pounds this year) and some of the food items. However, I have to say in my older age I don't quite get as much out of the Fair as I use to, particularly when it comes to food items. The cost of eating at the Fair is just getting more and more expensive. Nothing says this more than the "All You Can Drink Milk" stand. For the longest time it was $1, but now it's $2. I call that a racket (i.e. scam). Why? Because most folks who pay the $2 will have 8 ounce cups of milk that they will have to keep going up to the stand to wait in line and refill. A half gallon of milk at the grocery store is about a $1.70. So unless someone goes and refills their cup 8 times (64 ounces in a half gallon), the stand makes much more than the grocery store does per unit. Smart business move? I guess so. But not something I'm going to partake in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)