Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has had roughly 90 days to make dozens of news media appearances since the primary. On 7 November, the day after the election.....I believe that Cortez-mania will have collapsed finally.
My prediction is that Joe Crowley....previously the Democratic guy for the 14th District who got beaten in the primary by Cortez.....will win the election as a member of a unknown party in the district. Just my humble guess, but I think he'll clear with just over fifty percent of the vote. The Republican for the District....Anthony Pappas, will likely get near 15-percent of the vote, and the remainder will be for Cortez (35-percent).
What really happened in the primary? I think the Latino population of the 14th District (roughly 50-percent of the locals)....came out in force during the primary....knowing little about Cortez except she had a Latino-name, and did something that they rarely do....show up and vote in a primary situation.
What happens to Cortez after the loss? I suspect that MSNBC will hire her to be a commentator and regular on a couple of shows.....to keep her in the 'mix'. It's not really over because she will likely run again in the House race of 2020, and consolidate more votes.
Thursday, 11 October 2018
Wednesday, 10 October 2018
The Haley-2020 Scenario
There are several pieces laying there to consider if Nikki Haley intends to rest for six months and prepare a campaign because Donald Trump won't run in 2020.
1. Bloomberg is said now to be preparing a 'machine' to run in the primary of 2020. Cash-wise, he has the money to make the run. But there are two curious factors here: (1) he'll be 78 in 2020 and (2) any suggestion of trimming back on the commerce market or job gains will destroy his campaign. So Bloomberg has to portray himself as the 'good' version of Trump yet be fairly democratic in nature.
2. The odds that Haley might select a Latino (NM's Governor), who happens to be a female....to be her VP? That's a possibility. She could go and select a black conservative (West or Mia Love for example).
3. Trump in the wings to campaign for her? That's likely to occur and would make a big deal of difference.
4. The sales point of Haley? First, don't screw with the economy. Second, don't lessen any point that Trump laid out in 2016. Third, accept the fact that the news media is working to get Bloomberg ahead. Fourth, emphasize the age of Bloomberg and appear jogging/working out.
5. There's this odd conclusion of four years of Donald Trump. If you laid out his ten big goals....it's safe to say that he's accomplished half of them right now (two years into this), and if he gets funding for the wall, with construction starting up....then the bulk will be done by 2020.
Here's the thing....if you go into the thirty states that Trump won, suggesting Bloomberg....the only state that I think might be flipped to Bloomberg....would be Florida. But if you end up with one-third of the Latino vote, there's probably three or four of the Hillary-won states from 2016.....that might flip to Haley.
1. Bloomberg is said now to be preparing a 'machine' to run in the primary of 2020. Cash-wise, he has the money to make the run. But there are two curious factors here: (1) he'll be 78 in 2020 and (2) any suggestion of trimming back on the commerce market or job gains will destroy his campaign. So Bloomberg has to portray himself as the 'good' version of Trump yet be fairly democratic in nature.
2. The odds that Haley might select a Latino (NM's Governor), who happens to be a female....to be her VP? That's a possibility. She could go and select a black conservative (West or Mia Love for example).
3. Trump in the wings to campaign for her? That's likely to occur and would make a big deal of difference.
4. The sales point of Haley? First, don't screw with the economy. Second, don't lessen any point that Trump laid out in 2016. Third, accept the fact that the news media is working to get Bloomberg ahead. Fourth, emphasize the age of Bloomberg and appear jogging/working out.
5. There's this odd conclusion of four years of Donald Trump. If you laid out his ten big goals....it's safe to say that he's accomplished half of them right now (two years into this), and if he gets funding for the wall, with construction starting up....then the bulk will be done by 2020.
Here's the thing....if you go into the thirty states that Trump won, suggesting Bloomberg....the only state that I think might be flipped to Bloomberg....would be Florida. But if you end up with one-third of the Latino vote, there's probably three or four of the Hillary-won states from 2016.....that might flip to Haley.
Saturday, 6 October 2018
The Old Barracks (Now Gone)
Well....it no longer exists. That whole grassy area? That was a 100-car asphalt parking lot and two barracks built in the 1974 era. Gone.
When I arrived in 1980....this was already showing age and quality problems, at the six-year point. It was completely wooden in nature. The floors creaked when you walked on them. Everything about the building was defined as cheap....the doors, the curtains, the carpet. The windows had trouble opening and closing. At the time, half of us figured that the building would be lucky to reach the 20-year point.
The positive of the structure? You were two minutes away from the work-compound, and four minutes from the BX. The negative? Going to the chow-hall meant a 15-minute walk. So you couldn't delay yourself in the morning for breakfast....you had to be up by 6AM and walk straight over.
Sunset for South Africa?
In ten days, I'll be off on my first and probably last trip to South Africa. For a number of months, I've been reading up on the nation, and come to realize that it's probably five years at best....away from some civil war or internal destruction period, and what exists today (and for the past couple of hundred years)....won't be around by 2025.
So, the chief topic of destruction? The number three political party in South Africa has a goal....to take without compensation....roughly 50-percent of the farm land. No one says this is really the end of the discussion, and some suggest that the full 100-percent land-grab will be the end-result.
A complicated story? Yes. So I'll tell in three basic ways:
1. Population growth. Back around four-hundred years ago when the Dutch started to arrive in the region of South Africa....roughly three times the size of California....they found mostly nothing. The population, with the original group of Dutch and the local tribes of the region....added up to 700,000. You can imagine the US region of California, Oregon, and Washington-state....with 700,000 (just a bit more than exist in Portland today).
Somewhere between 1840 and 1860....the population finally reached two-million. By 1900? They had finally reached five million people. By the 1970s? They were over 22-million. Today? 55.5-million.
The problem is that the current pace can be projected out, and you can figure by 2040 (just 20 years away)....it'll be near 75-million.
Industry growth, the job-market, fair wages? It can't match the population growth. It probably maxed out in the 1960s.
So the public sees virtually every angle of life to be highly unfair and life is about poverty. Any idiot can create a political party....talk about redistribution of something (doesn't even have to be limited to farms) to bring fairness and happiness.
2. The farm story. In this period of 1650 to 1700....the Dutch came and basically negotiated with local tribes over land. The Dutch offered land deals....cattle for property. The chiefs accepted and some hostile situations were avoided. But let's be honest....in this whole region of 700,000 people in the area the size of three Californias....there's just an awful lot of land and nothing of a threat.
The Dutch and later the English who came in....came to figure out....only around 15-percent of the land is usable as farms or ranch-land. That's it. In some cases, it's only useful if you irrigated the property.
The discovery of gold and diamonds (1860s to 1880s)? Well....this brought conflict, and eventually the Zulu War. The avoidance of all-out war with the tribes ended at this point.
The bulk of prime farmland? Owned by white Dutch/English folks. Some inherited their property.....over and over. Some bought their property. Fairness? The treaties signed by the tribal chiefs had some legit situation involved....none of this is remembered today, and probably half of the population is attached more to political parties, than to tribal units.
Today, the banks are attached to the farming sector and part of the success story of the past hundred years. When this land law is established....the banking sector will be standing there with numerous loans and unable to really assess success or failure.
3. Finally, the political game. Once the law is invented....who really gets the property? No one can really say. It might go to a local black guy who has some deep experience in farming. It might go to a political party guy with zero experience. It might go to someone who can't get bank backing on loans and the land lays there unproductive. No matter what happens....the politicians can claim success.
The fear of whites? Why stop at just farms? You could make a funny rule that all hospitals in the country must be black-owned and managed.....so overnight, you'd find a new owner who was just 'given' the property.
Yes, all of this leads to civil war and conflict. Tribal leaders? I suspect they will finally stand up and challenge political leaders, and the country will be sub-divided into twenty-odd countries. The Western Cape area might be able to survive as one single nation (but it has the least of farm lands).
So much confusion.....that locals might leave and try to immigrate into Europe? I would suggest to be one of the ten basic achievements of this chaos approaching.
I guess I'm getting a view of a land that was, and up until 2018.....was one of the more interesting countries in the world.
So, the chief topic of destruction? The number three political party in South Africa has a goal....to take without compensation....roughly 50-percent of the farm land. No one says this is really the end of the discussion, and some suggest that the full 100-percent land-grab will be the end-result.
A complicated story? Yes. So I'll tell in three basic ways:
1. Population growth. Back around four-hundred years ago when the Dutch started to arrive in the region of South Africa....roughly three times the size of California....they found mostly nothing. The population, with the original group of Dutch and the local tribes of the region....added up to 700,000. You can imagine the US region of California, Oregon, and Washington-state....with 700,000 (just a bit more than exist in Portland today).
Somewhere between 1840 and 1860....the population finally reached two-million. By 1900? They had finally reached five million people. By the 1970s? They were over 22-million. Today? 55.5-million.
The problem is that the current pace can be projected out, and you can figure by 2040 (just 20 years away)....it'll be near 75-million.
Industry growth, the job-market, fair wages? It can't match the population growth. It probably maxed out in the 1960s.
So the public sees virtually every angle of life to be highly unfair and life is about poverty. Any idiot can create a political party....talk about redistribution of something (doesn't even have to be limited to farms) to bring fairness and happiness.
2. The farm story. In this period of 1650 to 1700....the Dutch came and basically negotiated with local tribes over land. The Dutch offered land deals....cattle for property. The chiefs accepted and some hostile situations were avoided. But let's be honest....in this whole region of 700,000 people in the area the size of three Californias....there's just an awful lot of land and nothing of a threat.
The Dutch and later the English who came in....came to figure out....only around 15-percent of the land is usable as farms or ranch-land. That's it. In some cases, it's only useful if you irrigated the property.
The discovery of gold and diamonds (1860s to 1880s)? Well....this brought conflict, and eventually the Zulu War. The avoidance of all-out war with the tribes ended at this point.
The bulk of prime farmland? Owned by white Dutch/English folks. Some inherited their property.....over and over. Some bought their property. Fairness? The treaties signed by the tribal chiefs had some legit situation involved....none of this is remembered today, and probably half of the population is attached more to political parties, than to tribal units.
Today, the banks are attached to the farming sector and part of the success story of the past hundred years. When this land law is established....the banking sector will be standing there with numerous loans and unable to really assess success or failure.
3. Finally, the political game. Once the law is invented....who really gets the property? No one can really say. It might go to a local black guy who has some deep experience in farming. It might go to a political party guy with zero experience. It might go to someone who can't get bank backing on loans and the land lays there unproductive. No matter what happens....the politicians can claim success.
The fear of whites? Why stop at just farms? You could make a funny rule that all hospitals in the country must be black-owned and managed.....so overnight, you'd find a new owner who was just 'given' the property.
Yes, all of this leads to civil war and conflict. Tribal leaders? I suspect they will finally stand up and challenge political leaders, and the country will be sub-divided into twenty-odd countries. The Western Cape area might be able to survive as one single nation (but it has the least of farm lands).
So much confusion.....that locals might leave and try to immigrate into Europe? I would suggest to be one of the ten basic achievements of this chaos approaching.
I guess I'm getting a view of a land that was, and up until 2018.....was one of the more interesting countries in the world.
A 'Jerry Springer' Show?
What are the chief ingredients of a Jerry Springer Show?
1. Lie-detector tests.
2. Accusations which seem marginally true.
3. Fakeness (one almost imagines that the six people lined up as the participants, are just hired for the role).
4. Whores. About seventy percent of the women tend to be trailer-park trash, skanky, or working on marriage number four.
5. Content inappropriate for children under twelve.
6. A verbal or physical fight.
7. By the end of the show, the odds of participants ever getting back on friendly terms are zero.
8. Body-builder guards are protecting Jerry or the participants.
9. There's always a history which requires five to eight minutes to tell the basic story.
10. In ten-percent of cases, there's a fake-woman or a transgender guy involved.
So you look over the Kavanaugh senate episode, and it's curious.....nine of the ten basic ingredients (no fake-woman/trans in this pony-show) are in this senate hearing.
Last week, I was reading some commentary by a conservative gal (she at least says this), and she said about an hour into the Professor Ford episode....she felt it was inappropriate for any kid under ten to hear the commentary....particularly in the middle of the day when kids might flip through channels.
I sat and pondered over this. Maybe the Senate ought to make up a new rule.....limit questions to only a 10 PM to 5 PM cycle, so kids wouldn't get all hyped up on booze and lust.
The chief question to ask here.....have we arrived at Jerry Spring-politics, and will this become the new norm? And do we really want that theatrical-style of politics? Personally, if they'd added some trans-guy-woman, it might have made this pretty interesting, and that Senator Graham guy would have had a lot of fun asking him/her a bunch of questions.
1. Lie-detector tests.
2. Accusations which seem marginally true.
3. Fakeness (one almost imagines that the six people lined up as the participants, are just hired for the role).
4. Whores. About seventy percent of the women tend to be trailer-park trash, skanky, or working on marriage number four.
5. Content inappropriate for children under twelve.
6. A verbal or physical fight.
7. By the end of the show, the odds of participants ever getting back on friendly terms are zero.
8. Body-builder guards are protecting Jerry or the participants.
9. There's always a history which requires five to eight minutes to tell the basic story.
10. In ten-percent of cases, there's a fake-woman or a transgender guy involved.
So you look over the Kavanaugh senate episode, and it's curious.....nine of the ten basic ingredients (no fake-woman/trans in this pony-show) are in this senate hearing.
Last week, I was reading some commentary by a conservative gal (she at least says this), and she said about an hour into the Professor Ford episode....she felt it was inappropriate for any kid under ten to hear the commentary....particularly in the middle of the day when kids might flip through channels.
I sat and pondered over this. Maybe the Senate ought to make up a new rule.....limit questions to only a 10 PM to 5 PM cycle, so kids wouldn't get all hyped up on booze and lust.
The chief question to ask here.....have we arrived at Jerry Spring-politics, and will this become the new norm? And do we really want that theatrical-style of politics? Personally, if they'd added some trans-guy-woman, it might have made this pretty interesting, and that Senator Graham guy would have had a lot of fun asking him/her a bunch of questions.
Friday, 5 October 2018
Witch Stuff
Because Senator Graham (Rep-SC) brought up witchcraft trials and 'tests' (how to handle Judge Kavanaugh)....I went back today and spent an hour over one of the 500-odd topics which I've often had an interest in witches.
Being from Alabama, we never really had any local witches, and most of my introduction was limited to books such as The Crucible and some historical piece which the local school had bought for their library but I noted since 1959 (when it was put into the school library and the first check-out card was placed into it)....it'd only been checked out three times by the time I'd read it in 1972. I was probably the only kid in that school that checked out every single non-fiction book they had.
To know that you are in the presence of a witch? Well....there are seven basic ways:
1. You get the witch to give you some urine (don't ask), and you mix this with rye....making it into some kind of bread. Then you find some dog (can't be a human), and if the dog eats the cake....a true witch will have severe pains. I admit it's pretty crazy but this whole witchcraft thing of the 1690s took off and guys just invented stuff like this out of thin air.
2. The Lords Prayer. Basically, if you could recite the whole prayer, you were safe.
3. You measure up some gal, and gather all the Bibles in the community to equal her height.....stacking them on a scale. You put the witch on the other side of the scale. If the gal is heavier than the Bibles....she's a witch. You tended to find that fat chunky women usually lost out on this test.
4. Women that hung around cats....especially black cats....were readily identified as witches.
5. You look over the accused gal for scares or birthmarks. Now the fact that everyone in some family might have scares, or birthmarks? Well.....that did present a problem.
6. The tear test. Basically, if you could provide tears, on request.....you were clear of being a witch.
7. The scratch test. Basically, you'd scratch some witch enough.....that she'd cast a spell. Usually, in this episode.....you ended up with forty-odd scratches, which the locals would all deem it sufficient that you didn't apparently have any spell-casting ability.
The odd case with the Kavanaugh episode....is that none of the Democrats seem willing to say how he could be innocent, and thus he can never prove or disprove the 'witch' business.
Being from Alabama, we never really had any local witches, and most of my introduction was limited to books such as The Crucible and some historical piece which the local school had bought for their library but I noted since 1959 (when it was put into the school library and the first check-out card was placed into it)....it'd only been checked out three times by the time I'd read it in 1972. I was probably the only kid in that school that checked out every single non-fiction book they had.
To know that you are in the presence of a witch? Well....there are seven basic ways:
1. You get the witch to give you some urine (don't ask), and you mix this with rye....making it into some kind of bread. Then you find some dog (can't be a human), and if the dog eats the cake....a true witch will have severe pains. I admit it's pretty crazy but this whole witchcraft thing of the 1690s took off and guys just invented stuff like this out of thin air.
2. The Lords Prayer. Basically, if you could recite the whole prayer, you were safe.
3. You measure up some gal, and gather all the Bibles in the community to equal her height.....stacking them on a scale. You put the witch on the other side of the scale. If the gal is heavier than the Bibles....she's a witch. You tended to find that fat chunky women usually lost out on this test.
4. Women that hung around cats....especially black cats....were readily identified as witches.
5. You look over the accused gal for scares or birthmarks. Now the fact that everyone in some family might have scares, or birthmarks? Well.....that did present a problem.
6. The tear test. Basically, if you could provide tears, on request.....you were clear of being a witch.
7. The scratch test. Basically, you'd scratch some witch enough.....that she'd cast a spell. Usually, in this episode.....you ended up with forty-odd scratches, which the locals would all deem it sufficient that you didn't apparently have any spell-casting ability.
The odd case with the Kavanaugh episode....is that none of the Democrats seem willing to say how he could be innocent, and thus he can never prove or disprove the 'witch' business.
The Kavanaugh 'Circus'
In summary, it was a series of bluffs....some designed at a one-star level....some at a five-star level, and it appears....they all failed.
The idea early in this strategy by the Democrats was simply to impress enough negativity upon Kavanaugh enough that he'd back out. For a normal guy, I think the Ford letter business would have done that. So Kavanaugh called the bluff, and forced her to show up and provide testimony. She had several counter-bluffs ready to go (the lie detector test, the second person backing up the story, etc). Well....he counter-bluffed.
Somewhere in the middle of this mess....Senator Graham woke up and probably delivered the greatest responses of his career. Some CNN folks were able to put a dozen hours a day into a negative-Kavanaugh message. And then pieces of the Ford story started to fall apart.
The three basic problems here? (1) No witnesses to support Ford's story. (2) The high school year book which shows an entire group of people in the early 1980s who partied, and consumed booze. (3) A recovered memory, which sometimes had information and sometimes had zero information. On the last issue, you kinda wonder if there alcohol blackouts involved.
So Kavanaugh will likely get the votes. But the bigger question....did this damage the Republicans in the election? No....I think it actually damaged two to four Democratic Senators more, and their likely chances of winning might be diminished by five-percent. In the thirty states that Trump won? This strategy probably did a fair amount of damage to the Democrat's brand.
And the thing you have to worry about....two older Democratic justices in the court and if either were to pass on....over the next year or two. With a GOP count of 60-plus Senators....Trump might be able to stack one more conservative judge on the court and set up a pattern for twenty-plus years. That's serious damage to the Democratic brand.
The idea early in this strategy by the Democrats was simply to impress enough negativity upon Kavanaugh enough that he'd back out. For a normal guy, I think the Ford letter business would have done that. So Kavanaugh called the bluff, and forced her to show up and provide testimony. She had several counter-bluffs ready to go (the lie detector test, the second person backing up the story, etc). Well....he counter-bluffed.
Somewhere in the middle of this mess....Senator Graham woke up and probably delivered the greatest responses of his career. Some CNN folks were able to put a dozen hours a day into a negative-Kavanaugh message. And then pieces of the Ford story started to fall apart.
The three basic problems here? (1) No witnesses to support Ford's story. (2) The high school year book which shows an entire group of people in the early 1980s who partied, and consumed booze. (3) A recovered memory, which sometimes had information and sometimes had zero information. On the last issue, you kinda wonder if there alcohol blackouts involved.
So Kavanaugh will likely get the votes. But the bigger question....did this damage the Republicans in the election? No....I think it actually damaged two to four Democratic Senators more, and their likely chances of winning might be diminished by five-percent. In the thirty states that Trump won? This strategy probably did a fair amount of damage to the Democrat's brand.
And the thing you have to worry about....two older Democratic justices in the court and if either were to pass on....over the next year or two. With a GOP count of 60-plus Senators....Trump might be able to stack one more conservative judge on the court and set up a pattern for twenty-plus years. That's serious damage to the Democratic brand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)