Showing posts with label Crooked Politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crooked Politicians. Show all posts

September 6, 2019

Will Trump Win? Let's Apply Math Without Love Because if You Love a Politician, U Will Make It Loose



As a Store Manager in several stores, in different areas, my mantra came from my first DM. "Love them Adam, but Check Them!" The stores in which I was a superstar I had followed that Mantra. In the ones I could have done so much better, I didn't check because I love them and from that came to trust (bad). This rule applies to politicians as well. {Adam}



Editorial, Adam Gonzalez
Many heads got scratched this week when President Trump doubled down on his erroneous claim that Alabama had been in the path of Hurricane Dorian.
Apparently relying on a map that warned of high winds, or another showing hypothetical path for the storm, the president over the weekend insisted Alabama was "in the crosshairs." At midweek, sitting in the Oval Office, he held up a map on which someone using a marking pen had ballooned the area of actual hurricane threat to include Alabama.
The question had to be asked: Wouldn't it be enough to be worried about Florida, Georgia and the rest of the Southeastern coast without dragging in Alabama — a state outside the current danger zone?
Perhaps. But in seeking to understand the moment it was tempting to observe that Alabama is arguably the cornerstone of the president's base of support in seeking a second term.  
While 17 states have consistently shown the president at 50% job approval or better, according to Gallup, Alabama is one of just three states where Trump's approval has often topped 60% since Inauguration Day. According to the Morning Consult tracking poll, Trump's approval is 18 points positive in West Virginia and 21 in Wyoming. In Alabama, it is 26, and Alabama has more votes in the Electoral College than those two other states combined.
Do such things matter to a president seeking reelection? They just might, especially when that president is struggling to raise his public approval nationwide.
The president is setting his course on issues, from guns and trade to immigration and abortion, and his stances on those make it clear he is playing to his base. All politicians want as many voters as they can get, and all begin their calculations by relying on a core of support. But in American presidential politics, the ultimate question is not just how many voters one has but where they live, because in American presidential politics, the Electoral College rules. While much time and attention is devoted to tracking the president's approval rating nationwide, and his supporters can be found in any part of the country, all that matters in the end is the president's standing state by state. Examining trends in individual states offers a clearer picture of Trump's reelection prospects a little more than a year from now — and a rationale for his strategy. It also highlights the degree to which the country's issue conflicts and partisan rivalries are defined by differences in population density.
Where the urban- and inner-suburban metro areas are politically dominant, Democrats prevail; otherwise, the president and the Republican Party hold sway. And where the city-country balance is closer to even, we have a swing state.
That sets the landscape for 2020 — with President Trump hoping to again win the 30 states he won in 2016 with 306 votes in the Electoral College. That gives him a margin of 36 Electoral College votes, because it takes 270 to win for a majority 538 electors who make up the Electoral College.
So how's he faring in the effort to do it again?
When being "popular" isn't the answer
It's nice to win the popular vote, and the popular vote usually underscores the final decision. Not always, though. See 2000 and 2016. In reality, the national popular vote has no role in the choice of the president.
That choice is determined by the Electoral College, guided by the popular vote in each state. (Note: If no one gets a majority in the Electoral College, the choice is made in the House of Representatives, where, for just this one decision, each state gets one vote.)
With this in mind, defining Trump's base requires both defining his voters and counting the states where they will cast at least a plurality of the 2020 vote.
In 2016, Trump won those 30 states with 306 electoral votes, though there were two "faithless electors" in Texas who voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, leaving Trump, technically, with 304.
Looking ahead to 2020, though, Trump looks to only be able to count on a little more than half of those states to continue backing him, come what may. Trump's approval rating averaged just 40% nationwide in 2018, according to Gallup, and his approval rating was above 50% in 17 states — all of which he had carried in 2016.
The Trump 17 are: Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska and Wyoming.
These numbers are based on the Gallup tracking poll that takes soundings 350 times a year. It is generally corroborated by the readings done by Morning Consult. Although Morning Consult had sub-50 readings for Trump in Utah at several points in the first two years, it was above 50% this summer, as are Texas and Missouri.
In the first weeks of 2019, during the government shutdown, both Gallup and Morning Consult found Trump dipping below 50% by a point or two in some of the larger states in this core. But in each, the rating quickly snapped back above 50% when the shutdown ended and has remained there since.
These 17 states then would have to be regarded as the purest definition of Trump's geographic base, the firmest foundation for his reelection. Beyond that, they easily provide most of the senators who make Republican Mitch McConnell the Senate majority leader. The current Senate has 53 Republican members, 31 of whom hail from those same 17 states.
As a measure of how American politics has changed, consider that there were 15 Democrats from these states when Bill Clinton became president. One Democrat from that era, Richard Shelby of Alabama, is still around, but he switched to the GOP in 1994 right after that party became the Senate majority. He symbolizes how populists from largely rural states in the South and West have migrated from one party to the other and become the hard base for Trump.
It has long been noted that Trump, a former Manhattan socialite and billionaire, makes an odd champion for these voters and these regions of the country. But his willingness to take up their causes has largely won them over. And in 2016, his emergence from a field of 17 candidates to win the Republican Party nomination installed him atop a party that now commands the loyalty of rural America as never before.
The more rural, the more pro-Trump
Within the states, and across the national map, party loyalties can be perceived as a function of population density.
"All the social changes that have pulled cities and rural areas apart since the 1930s have come to be expressed in the party system," writes Jonathan Rodden, a political scientist at Stanford University. "American geographic polarization has emerged in large part because our political institutions have created a strict two-party system that has gradually come to reflect a set of social cleavages that are highly correlated with population density."
And Will Wilkinson, vice president for research at the Niskanen Center, a Washington think tank, has added: "The filtering/sorting dynamic of urbanization has produced a lower-density, mainly white [rural] population that is increasingly uniform in socially conservative personality, aversion to diversity, relative disinclination to migrate and seek higher education, and Republican Party loyalty." 
Trump's most loyal 17 states have in common a relatively low population. The two largest, Tennessee and Missouri, rank just 16th and 18th among all states in the Census Bureau estimates for 2018. Each has two major cities that vote Democratic, but the urban characteristics of Nashville and Memphis, and St. Louis and Kansas City, are not enough to counterbalance the exurban and rural characteristics of those states overall.
More typical of the group in the population in Kansas. With a little under 3 million residents last year, and ranking 35th nationally, Kansas is still more populous than half the rest of the 17 states. Next in size is West Virginia with 1.8 million. Five states among the 17 qualify for only a single seat in the U.S. House: Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming.
A glance at these 17 pro-Trump states on a map makes them appear to dominate the landscape, and indeed they do in a strictly geographic sense. They comprise some of the largest expanses of sparsely inhabited land America has to offer. That impression only strengthens when you add Texas, a megastate where Trump has not always been above 50% approval in the Gallup but has never been far from it. While the state is becoming more competitive, few doubt it will be in the president's column again in 2020.
Tacking on Texas also greatly expands the footprint of Trump's hardcore states in the Electoral College. Without Texas, their collective contribution is only 102 electoral votes. With Texas, they reach 140, just over half of what Trump will need to secure a second term.
On the contrary
The other side of the coin in the Gallup approval map is the group of 16 (plus the District of Columbia) states where Trump's approval was below 40% in his first two years in office. Here again, the Morning Consult tracking data generally corroborate these findings and extend them into 2019.
Not surprisingly, these 16 have a lot more people than the core Trump 17, as the below-40 states include three of the nation's most populous five (California, New York, and Illinois) and nine of the top 22. That translates to 201 electoral votes or nearly three-fourths of what a Democrat might need to win.
It is tempting to say this is the built-in base of Trump's opponent, whoever that may be.
But that still leaves a whopping 235 electoral votes in the 17 states that are not distinctly pro-Trump or con, the states where he has been at 40% to 49% approval (again, relying primarily on the Gallup tracking).
In 2016, Trump was able to pick off just enough states in the Great Lakes region — starting with pivotal Ohio — to win despite losing the popular vote by 2.9 million votes. He could win again, even losing by millions in the popular vote, if he can reassemble the same bloc of states — or close to it.
There seems little point in campaigning at all in the deeper blue states such as California, New York and Illinois. While millions of voters live there, the president has little or no chance of translating their votes into the electoral votes he needs to supplement his base in the rest of the country.
The president will campaign in the states where he has been polling in the 40s, including previously reliable blue states he shocked the world by winning in 2016 (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin). He won those three by fractions of a percentage point each (just under 78,000 votes aggregate total).
All three states elected Democratic governors in 2018. But the president maintains a loyal Republican base in each and will again appeal to non-Republicans who found him the better choice in 2016. He hopes they hold and lift him again next year.
Short Center Editorial by the Publisher, Adam Gonzalez:


 One of the problems with our voting system is One the Electoral vote and Second, the voters falling in love with politicians like if they were movie stars. These politicians are as honest as the best or worse actor in reading their lines and presenting something very far from what they are. However, our system is political and we have to vote for politicians but does not say you have to love them? I think it started with FDR and it got cemented with the short life of President John Kennedy. But because 17 states fell for Trump, a good for nothing New Yorker who never worked a day in his life but he hit the right tone with the people in 17 states that thought he was better than Hillary who only the ones closest to her loved her ( all 12 of them) and that was not many. Now we have people infatuated with the man least likely to run and win against a sleeky snake-like Trump. That is Biden of coarse. He never got the message that the time with Obama was going to be the end of the White House career and he had a lot of accomplishments and many loving fans. But loving Biden means you' re not thinking straight. Why is that? Simple! Most of us ignore the shortcoming of the people we love.
 On the other hand that is not the way, Trump is going to be feeling and treating him as such, which means Trump again might win. Even with a good candidate that knows how to take it but better yet to dish it out without looking hateful this person will have a tough time not because they won't be millions of voters ahead like Hillary(over 3million over Trump yet she lost) but is the College Electoral system in which states with 3 thousand people have more say than NYC, California or Washington state with its millions of residents and the drivers of the economy of this country. 
My point is simple: Please don't fall in love for Biden, He will loose and don't fall in love with any of the other. You need to get to know the strong political points of Trump, which is simple to see and not many and try to find someone to kick those on this bold head (sorry for the bold head comment guys, I like them very much). 
                                                                    
                                  Image result for I like you but don't love you

 Needless to say, the president will emphasize that strategic handful of "purple states" that have swung back and forth in recent presidential cycles. Most important are the ones he captured last time: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona and Iowa. But he will also be looking to compete in swing states he lost to Hillary Clinton: Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire.
With all this predictable effort, however, Trump will not neglect the 17 base states that have stood by him most loyally so far. And he should find it natural enough to enlarge this group with the states that have at least kept him near 50% approval through his first 32 months in office.
These include the megastates of Texas and Georgia (No. 2 and No. 8), plus Louisiana and Indiana. He has held rallies in these states and stressed their issues and concerns from Inauguration Day forward. And he knows that without all these states on board, all other strategies and outreach will not be enough to ensure a second inauguration.

March 17, 2018

Facebook Suspends DATA Firm Whose Controversial Analysis Helped Trump Win 2017






Cambridge Analytica chief executive Alexander Nix boasted about the firm's intricate dataImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionCambridge Analytica chief executive Alexander Nix boasted about the firm's intricate dataGetty ImagesImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

The data firm credited with helping Donald Trump win the 2016 US election has been suspended from Facebook. 
At the centre of the row is University of Cambridge professor Aleksandr Kogan who, according to Facebook, made a "personality app" that gathered data he then sold to third parties.  

Facebook said it had received reports that Cambridge Analytica and others had not destroyed all the data that was obtained, in breach of Facebook policies.
Cambridge Analytica said it complied with Facebook's rules, had deleted the data after it was requested by Facebook, and no longer held or used any of the data taken from the profiles.
The BBC has not yet been able to reach Prof Kogan. 
Facebook said the suspension would remain in place “pending further information”. 

‘Gave consent'

Cambridge Analytica, which is not connected with the University of Cambridge, recently rose to prominence for its significant role in US President Trump’s election campaign, where it provided intricate data on the thoughts of American voters. 
Former presidential advisor Steve Bannon was on its board of directors. 
The company also played a role in the Brexit referendum campaign. 
Facebook’s deputy legal counsel Paul Grewal wrote at length about the decision in a blog post.
"In 2015, we learned that a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge named Dr. Aleksandr Kogan... violated our platform policies..." 
Prof Kogan is said to have created an app called “thisisyourdigitallife”. It was accessed by approximately 270,000 people, Facebook said. 
"In so doing, they gave their consent for [Prof] Kogan to access information such as the city they set on their profile, or content they had liked, as well as more limited information about friends who had their privacy settings set to allow it.” 
Users who downloaded it was told they were taking a personality prediction test that was part of a "research app used by psychologists”. 
While that was initially true - Prof Kogan is a psychologist - Facebook said the data was then kept and sold on to third-parties including Cambridge Analytica and its parent company Strategic Communications Laboratories. Another recipient was said to be an employee at Eunoia Technologies. 
Mr. Grewal claimed: "Although Kogan gained access to this information in a legitimate way and through the proper channels that governed all developers on Facebook at that time, he did not subsequently abide by our rules."
Facebook told the companies which bought the data to delete it immediately and said it was given assurances the information would be destroyed. 
"Several days ago, we received reports that, contrary to the certifications we were given, not all data was deleted," Mr. Grewal said. 
"We are moving aggressively to determine the accuracy of these claims. If true, this is another unacceptable violation of trust and the commitments they made.” 
The firm said it would not rule out legal action over the incidents. 
In a statement, Cambridge Analytica said it deleted "all the data it had received" when it was told the information was obtained in breach of Facebook's terms of service.
"For the avoidance of doubt, no data [from Prof Kogan] was used in the work we did in the 2016 US presidential election," it added.
The University of Cambridge said it had no reason to believe Prof Kogan, employed in its psychology department, used university facilities while gathering the data.
A university spokesman said professors were able to have their own business interests - but they must be "held in a personal capacity".



   BBC


It is adamfoxie's 10th🦊Anniversay. 10 years witnessing the world and bringing you a pieace whcih is ussually not getting its due coverage.




February 4, 2018

This Memo Does Not Vindicate Trump Nor His Obstruction of Justice






President Trump speaking to congressional Republicans on Friday. CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times 

For weeks, allies of President Trump ratcheted up the pressure to “release the memo.” The impact, according to supporters, would be monumental: It would shake the F.B.I. “to its core” (Representative Jeff Duncan of South Carolina) or it would reveal abuses “100 times bigger” than what incited the American Revolution (Sebastian Gorka, a former White House official).
The president himself said, after the memo’s release on Friday, that it “vindicates” him in the probe.
But it does no such thing. The memo from House Republicans, led by Representative Devin Nunes, fell well short of the hype. Its main argument is that when the Justice Department sought a warrant to wiretap the former Trump adviser Carter Page, it did not reveal that Christopher Steele — the author of a controversial opposition-research dossier — was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign through a law firm.
This is actually a fairly common — and rarely effective — the argument made by defendants who seek to suppress evidence obtained by a warrant.
What might be the lasting legacy of the Nunes memo is how President Trump reacted to it. According to reports, Mr. Trump suggested: “the memo might give him the justification to fire [the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein] — something about which Trump has privately mused — or make other changes at the Justice Department, which he had complained was not sufficiently loyal to him.” 
In fact, Mr. Trump’s approval of the release of the memo and his comments that releasing it could make it easier for him to fire Mr. Rosenstein could help Robert Mueller, the special counsel, prove that Mr. Trump fired James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, with a “corrupt” intent — in other words, the intent to wrongfully impede the administration of justice — as the law requires.
After all, Mr. Trump is now aware that he is under investigation for obstruction, and he knows that Mr. Comey said that Mr. Trump wanted “loyalty” from him. Mr. Mueller could argue that the president’s comments that Mr. Rosenstein was not “loyal” and his desire to fire Mr. Rosenstein suggest Mr. Trump’s unlawful intent when he fired Mr. Comey. 
The memo also offers the outlines of a broader probable cause case against Mr. Page. The Nunes memo suggests that there was substantial additional evidence, even though it avoids discussing that evidence. The memo indicates that the investigation of Mr. Page began well before the warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was sought and that the Russia investigation was initiated because of the statements of George Papadopoulos.
The warrant was issued and then renewed three separate times. Each time, as is standard in seeking a FISA warrant, a judge reviewed extensive information before issuing it. The fact that the warrant was renewed three times indicates that the F.B.I. obtained useful intelligence each time — a judge wouldn’t have approved a renewal if the prior warrant came up empty. That suggests that once the warrants were issued, they revealed important evidence.
In addition, the timeline set forth in the memo indicates that the FISA warrants were submitted by both the Obama and Trump administrations. The initial surveillance began before Mr. Rosenstein was deputy attorney general, and by the time he was at the Justice Department, he approved renewal applications that were based on the intelligence gathered from the earlier surveillance — not the dossier.
On the issue of bias, whenever the Justice Department seeks a warrant, they must present extensive evidence to a judge, who decides whether to issue the warrant based on that evidence. After the fact, defendants can challenge warrants by arguing that the government recklessly excluded information that would have caused the judge not to sign the warrant.
Courts have repeatedly held that even when the government omitted the criminal history of the informant or the fact that the informant was paid, it didn’t matter unless the omitted information would have caused the judge not to sign the warrant.
The Nunes memo claims to show that the warrant was obtained unlawfully, but there is no way of knowing that without examining the extensive evidence submitted in conjunction with the warrant, which the memo does not do. Given that Mr. Steele was a former intelligence officer, not a flipper with an extensive criminal history, it will be hard to show that a judge would have believed he was lying if the source of his funding was included in the application.
Given how little substance there is to the Nunes memo, the Republicans made a misstep by pushing through its release in a partisan manner. The specter of an unreleased memo was more menacing than the thin allegations revealed in the memo itself, which are hotly disputed by congressional Democrats. 
Although at least one Republican maintains that the memo shows that Mr. Rosenstein, Mr. Comey, and others committed “treason,” the memo itself does not allege that the F.B.I. or Department of Justice knowingly used false information or even that the information they used was false. Because the allegations in the memo are legally irrelevant, I would be surprised if the memo was more than a short-lived publicity stunt.
This is not the result Mr. Nunes expected when his staff wrote the memo, but that could be its lasting impact.


Featured Posts

Gay Couples Find A Way to Get Married in Israel

  79% of Israelis back gay marriage. But the religion that is supposed to protect those that love each other and wish to be a c...