Kareem Abdul Jabar at the Democratic Convention

CNBC— The NBA's all-time leading scorer had some harsh words about Republican nominee Donald Trump's views and ideas pertaining Muslims on Thursday night.
"Donald Trump's idea to register Muslims and prevent them from entering our country is the very tyranny [Thomas] Jefferson abhorred," Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said at the Democratic National Convention

Not letting a foreign citizen from a dangerous country come to your country is not tyranny. Tyranny is shooting up a gay night club. It’s driving a truck through a crowd of people. It’s knifing a priest during church. It’s blowing yourself up at a bar. Tyranny is ISIS. ISIS is.....?

 

Maybe Kareem should focus on how he personally treats other people:


"Thank God Kareem was my teammate, because I used to cringe at the way he treated people….Sometimes he’d have people in tears. It’s hurt him now that he’s done playing.” - Magic Johnson.

2016 Electoral Map Predictions Using Primary Results

 

 



One measure of who might win the key swing states is how many total people voted in each party in their respective Primaries compared to previous elections. (Yes some Cruz supporters may not vote for Trump, nor will some Sanders supporters vote for Hillary. However, it is a measure of voter enthusiasm. )



Real Clear Politics: Base "Create Your Own Map"



I compared the primary totals to the general election votes in 2008 & 2012. Then I looked at 2016 primary totals and extrapolated based on a pro-rata share. This method couldn't be used in a couple states because the 2008 and 2012 republican nominees were effectively decided by the time the primary hit their state (shown in orange below).  Some caucus states (in purple) are too messy to be able to extrapolate data or lacked in a popular vote (such as the infamous Colorado vote in 2016 for Republicans).

I had to combine the primary enthusiasm data with common sense. For the remaining states, I had to make judgment calls based on what data was available. So here are my calls and the rationale behind them.

Arizona: This is probably a good example of the extrapolation method. Both Republicans and Democrats had declines in their primary totals, but Republicans should hold easily.

Colorado: Republican totals for 2016 were not available but enthusiasm from Democrats was quite high.

Florida: This is a flaw in the extrapolation method. Republicans got more votes in the general in 2012 than 2008 but managed more general election votes. If you extrapolate based on 2008 data for Republicans, then Democrats pick up this state.

Indiana: The Republican nominee was effectively decided by the time Indiana's primaries wrapped up in 2008 and 2012, but what is striking is the decline in Democrat turnout.

Maine: Maine has too muddy of a primary process to consider, but given the levels of victory in 2008 and 2012, I think it remains in the Democrat column.

Michigan: Michigan for the Dems in 2008 had the issue where Obama wasn't on the ballet, so that data isn't helpful. For the Republicans total votes could be 2.75M or 3M depending if you extrapolate based on 2012 or 2008 data, respectively. I think Democrats hold it, but it will be surprisingly competitive.

Minnesota: Poor data to evaluate on, but I would be really surprised if it didn't go for Clinton.

Missouri: Turnout for Republicans was huuuge compared to previous years. Democrats have weak numbers.

North Carolina: Huge decline in Democrat turnout. Stay Republican.

New Hampshire: A rare state with declining Republican turnout, coupled with increased Democrat turnout. I think this is going to be solid blue.

Nevada: There is no real Democrat data to go on, but the increase in Republican turnout should have Democrats nervous. I think this one flips.

Ohio: Even though  I don't think Republicans will win Ohio with 75% of the vote, the fact that 69% more people voted in the Republican primary in Ohio in 2016 than 2012 is surprising. By contrast, Democrats only managed 52% of their 2008 total. Given that both contests were competitive until the end, I believe that the results are informative. 

Pennsylvania: While this state was actually competitive for Republicans this year in the primaries, the fact that more Democrats voted in their primary than Republicans is bad news. Democrats tend to turnout higher percent of people for the general than compared to the primary.

Virginia: Increase in Republican turnout combined with decline in Democrat turnout should be sufficient to overcome the general election deficits.

Wisconsin: I should have extrapolated based on 2012 data (I don't feel like re-uploading the photo), but Virginia should still flip to Republican.





The Focus on Gun Violence is misleading

Why is the focus on “gun violence” instead of violence in general? The complete ban on guns will not eliminate gun violence or violence in general. More to the point non-gun violence could increase. When criminals know the population is unarmed, they can effortlessly target the weaker in society. That’s why home invasions (especially when the homeowner is present) are much more common in the UK than it is in Texas.

 

An elderly woman with a bat is no match for a 24 year old man with a bat when he invades her house at night. However, a trained elderly woman with a gun has a reasonable chance of defending herself. Guns rights are rights for the weak, disabled, and elderly. Guns rights are women’s rights.

 

Owning  a gun is not a risk if you are responsible and trained. These silly aggregate statistics that say “a gun is more of a risk than a benefit” are irrelevant if you don’t plan on commiting suicide and are responsible enough not to leave it where a child can find it






http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/gun-control-survey_b_11194910.html

The Forgotten Man

 "As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X. “C” is the forgotten man, a kind of everyman who falls into no category: “He works, he votes, generally he prays—but he always pays—yes, above all, he pays.”


William Graham Sumner

On Ken Burns and Trump

Ken Burns made a commencement speech at Stanford, very critical of Trump.

I've always enjoyed his documentaries, but found his comments to be a bit of farce, given the alternative candidate.

While I was not a Trump supporter, when he says, "a person who easily lies, creating an environment where the truth doesn’t seem to matter; who has never demonstrated any interest in anyone or anything but himself and his own enrichment; who insults veterans," - I almost started laughing as Trump is an amateur liar while Hillary is a professional. None of Trump's lies have ever result in the death of Americans or the compromise of classified information. (btw, when has Trump ever insulted veterans?)

Burns goes on to say, "powerless people who have flocked to his campaign in the mistaken belief that – as often happens on TV – a wand can be waved and every complicated problem can be solved with the simplest of solutions. They can’t." That's the Obama playbook. Where was Burns when mindless "Hope and Change" was being spouted? 

 

The lack of details won Obama many votes, all thanks to the anti-intellectualism that Burns decries. The "sophisticated media culture that requires you – no, desperately needs you – to live in an all-consuming disposable present, wearing the right blue jeans, driving the right car, carrying the right handbag, eating at all the right places, blissfully unaware of the historical tides that have brought us to this moment, blissfully uninterested in where those tides might take us." But who controls that media?

Despite what we wish the election to be, there will only be one of two people as our next President. It will be Trump or Hillary. Make no mistake about it. Once again, we are left with the better of two evils. (No, Gary Johnson doesn't have a chance.)