Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts

State of the race – November 4th

By Dean L

Yesterday I updated my view of the state of the race for the presidency and it looked like a tie as far as the electoral college.  Today I went back to the RCP average of polls and I recalibrated my weighted average of polls to see if I’m in the same place as my electoral college view of how tight this race is.   It seems to be the case that it is very tight. As you can see below:

Click to enlarge.
Previously I had a two week view which I’ve changed to a weekly view this time around.  This view takes a weighted average of the polls, as they are not all equal.  The approach is as follows – if a poll has 2000 respondents and another poll has 1000 respondents I’ve pro-rated the voter percentages Trump and Clinton for each poll as a percentage of that poll but the overall voter total would be 3000 so a poll that has Clinton ahead by 4 points but over 1000 people polled would net her less voters than the poll that had her behind 3 points over 2000 voters. 

Additionally I’ve excluded polls that do not indicate their margin of error as those polls are not transparent and therefore subject to manipulation. I’ve excluded any polls with less than 800 respondents and polls with margins of error greater than 4.5%.  I’ve also excluded all polls with a margin of 6 or more (the last measure has been more fluid than the others as the gap has been larger than that at times).

For November-ending polling only 1 poll has been excluded as a result of those criteria – a Reuters/Ipsos poll that has Hillary Clinton +6. It seems like an outlier, though I could be wrong. That poll has consistently showed Clinton at the high end of the spectrum and seems out of alignment with most polls that range from Trump +4 to Clinton +5 (most at Clinton +1 to 3).

One other note – as I’ve capped the outlier to reflect the current situation, previous weeks have had polls excluded that previously did not have those same polls excluded – my Excel spreadsheet is not that dynamic (yet).  Therefore weeks prior to November were further apart than they appear above.

With that exclusion my weighted average of polls indicates an absolute tie in total voters allocated across 5 November polls. It’s a true toss up right now in my estimation, excluding any possible momentum.

Bear in mind that this does not take into account polling methodologies which I do not have the bandwidth to review, and some polls that I have included demand further review.  Nor does this take into account momentum.  The polls today might not reflect next Tuesday.

However, even the polling as it exists, shows a tight, tight race.

It’s time to end early voting

By Dean L

It’s time to end early voting.  Yes, people could change their minds based on new information that arises after they’ve voted but before election day, but that’s not the real reason it needs to be stopped. Early voting does offer some benefits that cannot be ignored, but the negative possibilities vastly outweigh the potential benefits unless a smarter, more robust methodology is employed to do so. Today, that is not the case.

A system that relies on honesty, integrity and impartiality has inherent weakness. Democrats for decades have been using the inclusivity argument to their advantage.  It’s true when it comes to illegal alien naturalization and it’s true when it comes to voting ‘rights’.   They argue that people don’t need identification to vote.  They argue that whatever it takes to enable easier voting should be the law of the land.  That includes early voting.  We already know that Democrats are prepared to cheat to get their wins, and possibly more than any other voting rights discussion, early voting enables them to do that.  

Early voting effectively widens the window for Democrats to cheat – to stuff ballot boxes – without eyes on them by election monitors.  Having to dedicate election monitors to every polling place is tricky enough if it’s on one day every four years.  But expand that to 46 days (in some states early voting commenced as early as September 23rd this cycle), and consider the logistical nightmare by political parties trying to find qualified, dependable and honest polling place monitors for that long, for as many counties as the nation requires.  It’s clearly not happening as voter fraud issues continue to pop up.  Giving Democrats as many as 46 times the number of opportunities to cheat is a kneecapping of democracy and it should not be allowed to continue stand (‘not allowed to stand’ should not be in the same sentence as ‘kneecapping’).

There are plenty of potential issues with voting machines, mail-in or absentee ballots going missing or a trunk full of ballots mysteriously showing up to change election outcomes, to have a serious re-think of the neutrality of the entire process. But anything that expands the window that allows Democrats to stuff ballot boxes with dead voter ballots has got to be the number one item on the radar of those seeking fair elections. It’s curious that more liberal leaning states are predominant in seeming to favor the earliest early voting dates.  

Here’s why I don’t trust the polls

By Dean L

Being objective this (or any) election cycle is difficult.  There’s a partisan bias inside everyone, and that’s the starting point for all of us (even for those who are supposedly still undecided).  It only gets more challenging from there. Rhetoric is heated and on both sides and often off-the-scale inflammatory in nature.  When it comes to the polls, it’s concerning that those conducting the polls share these biases and display proclivities based on those biases or at a minimum based on assumptions that may be guided, at least in part, subconsciously by these biases.

Let me cite one specific example.  The latest ABC News poll  has Clinton leading Trump 48% to 42%, a full 6 points ahead.  Taking that at face value, with only two weeks to go to the election, it seems impossible for Donald Trump to make up enough ground nationally, to win enough states to win the election.  That is, until you drill down just a little bit.
This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 22-25, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,135 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-29-29 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
Take a look at the partisan affiliation split. 36-29-29 Democrats-Republicans-Independents. Seems plausible on the surface – Democrats +7. Except if you look at the latest Gallup survey on partisan split (admittedly from mid-September, but affiliation does not change that quickly) The split is quite different. Gallup has the split 32-27-40. Democrats only +5 and many more Independents which are leaning Trump.

There were 1135 surveyed. Based on the poll’s internals, that would mean 409 Democrats, 329 Republicans and 329 Independents. That would leave 68 who were polled who probably refused to state their affiliation. If those numbers were reflective of Gallup’s polled mix, there would be 363 Democrats, 306 Republicans and 454 Independents, leaving 12 undeclared.

Interestingly the poll does not give support among the candidates by party affiliation. But if we assume 89% of Democrats will vote for Clinton, 88% of Republicans will vote for Trump and 53% of independents will vote for Trump and most of the remainder will not divulge their vote (these percentages result in a 48% to 42% result per ABC, but this is just to establish a baseline comparison, I’m not trying to correct the poll here, just make a point) then something interesting can be derived.

Simply by adjusting to reflect the Gallup partisan breakdown the Clinton lead drops from 6% to 3%.


That’s just one aspect of polls that can easily be skewed by re-weighting only seemingly slightly can dramatically affect the outcome of polling.  A lot of people conflate oversampling with weighting. The Atlantic calls Trump supporters idiots for not getting this – meanwhile they conveniently have glossed over the weighting issue.

The latest ABC poll is just one example.  Weighting this way is best-guessing and other polls could easily have erred similarly in Trump’s favor.  The truth is we just don’t know.  In fact – maybe Gallup is wrong and the ABC weighting is correct. The point is the polls are all over the place and subject to bias, intentional or not based on how that weighting is applied.  The only way you can account for this is the aggregation of polls and looking at not specifically the margins but the trends.  Polls at least should be internally consistent.  If polls are consistently among themselves showing Clinton pulling ahead, or Trump narrowing the gap, then that’s reasonable to believe they are directionally indicative of a trend.  And that’s only if the bias is not intentional, as an intentionally skewed poll would probably be adjusted to reflect the desired outcome. Individual polls don’t mean a lot trends do.

Stat of the polls – October 19th

By Dean L

[Note: In a few previous posts on my own blog, I’ve analyzed some of the impacts of the polls and where I thought the race was actually at.  There’s some good background on the analysis below here and here and here].

The final debate is today.  Going into it, I thought the exercise below would be useful, since I suspect  the polls will change in the next week.  Rather than looking at the race today, I thought I’d take a look at the polls themselves and see if there’s any accounting for the Hillary Clinton October surge that is seemingly suspect.  A couple of things have jumped out.

Following are polls from the RealClearPolitics average of polls, looked at in isolation. In each case I’ve looked at polls sectioned into the 1st half /2nd half of each month dating back to June 2016. Let me add a caveat here.  There is an additional overlay that is needed here which is to compare these polls to how they performed or assessed Trump and Clinton in the primaries.  A lot of pollsters predicted Trump’s death during the primaries.  Many of those who were wrong are predicting the same now.  And that should be factored in as an adjustment factor here.  I have not had the opportunity to do that here.

Another thing that should be factored in is that the polls don’t all share their weighting of polling participants.  They are black boxes and those methodologies definitely can skew results.  Not making that methodology available makes a poll suspect in my eyes, as a hidden methodology allows the opportunity to manipulate results.  In turn, I have also not had the time to review most polling crosstabs where they are available, so there’s some culpability on my part as well.

Firstly let’s take a look at Rasmussen, a pollster generally regarded as conservative-leaning.  I’ve selected this one first because there is an obvious point that comes from it.  Here’s what a trend of their polls look like.

Rasmussen: Click to enlarge

Forget the trends, look at the x axis.  The last included Rasmussen poll included is from July.  But Rasmussen is still polling to this day. Rasmussen has the race tied.  But it does not reflect in the RCP average anymore.  Why not?  That’s strange.

Next let’s look at the LA Times polls.  This poll is an outlier as it has Trump leading.  This poll has caught a lot of flack from pollsters and journalists but it has been a consistent methodology poll and therefore can indicate a trend regardless if the polling mix is correct or not.

LA Times: Click to enlarge

To me this poll indicates a narrow “trading range” for each of the candidates : Trump 43 to 46 and Clinton 42 to 45.5 since early August. This poll displays much less fluctuation than other polls and is probably more reflective of decided voters since the same voters are being repeatedly polled whereas in other polls we see a fresh set of voters each time.  The takeaway is that Trump voters are likely not abandoning him.  Rather the question regarding this poll is, “have they selected a truly representative sample of voters?”  

In contrast to the LA Times polls, CNN-related polls tell a different tale.  CNN showed a narrowing race, as did many polls through the first half of September but a suddenly widening gap in October.  That’s representative of the RCP average of polls and reflects the narrative that the October surprise of Trump’s verbally abusive hot microphone comments.  Is that properly reflecting the present situation?  At odds with the LA Times, that’s the real question, which we do not know the answer to as of yet.

CNN: Click to enlarge

CBS, echoes the CNN narrative but with a wider divide throughout,  settling in at 11 points so far.  That seems unrealistically high, nevertheless the trend observed in CNN related polls is echoed here.

CBS: Click to enlarge
Fox News, cognizant of their viewer base but nevertheless an establishment institution mirrors CBS but on a smaller scale – either in an attempt to ameliorate the feelings of their viewers or in an unintentional bias in their polling.  The question is – does the bias overstate or understate Trump support?

Fox: Click to enlarge

Over the last 6 weeks, Fox has had a Clinton lead ranging from 5% to 7%.  Only in the first half of September was the race really tight in their polling.  The consistency mirrors the LA Times a little better than other polls.  That’s interesting: (1) is the consistency more reflective of the race than the sudden swings (I believe it probably is) and if so (2) is the Fox polling getting a better or worse sample than the LA Times?

One set of polls I have consistently taken issues with are the NBC-related polls.  Specifically their SurveyMonkey polls I find dubious but in addition the plethora of NBC polls (excluding CNBC and MSNBC) seem to be stacking the RCP averages just because there are so many of them. Nevertheless, despite their almost outlier-esque differentials, take a look a this trend – it’s interesting:

NBC: Click to enlarge

Their view of the post Labor Day Trump free fall has him bottoming out in the first half of October and already rebounding. Has their sampling changed?  They seem to be an outlier in terms of a Trump recovery or support turnaround.  On the other hand, they are showing Hillary above 50%.  That’s definitely an outlier at this point.  That’s not to say it cannot happen and they may be a leading indicator of that but at this point I’d be very reluctant to believe her support has surpassed 50%.

Next up is Reuters.

Reuters: Click to enlarge
What’s interesting about Reuters-related polls is that Trump never breaks 40% and Hillary and Trump combined are very low numbers, indicating a large number of undecided and/or other party voters.  Hillary Clinton never breaks 44%. Interestingly, the Trump slump here also appears to reverse in the second half of October.

I also looked at Monmouth and Quinnipiac.  The former interestingly has polls showing up consistently in the latter half of the month and the latter seems to be overdue for another poll.  Both, seemingly refuting my earlier point about Hillary Clinton support not exceeding 50%, so perhaps there is some evidence that should could be there now.  Again, the evidence is thin, but there is more evidence  than I mentioned above.  Take from the two pollster views below, what you will.

Monmouth: Click to enlarge

Quinnipiac: Click to enlarge

If pollsters are skewing results, they will have to rid themselves of their biases over the next two weeks if they wish to maintain an air of expertise.  If the election rolls around and your polls are off – you get hammered. Zogby used to be included in the RCP average but was way off in recent elections and got themselves bumped from not only RCP but from the media in general.  Pollsters don’t want that for themselves.

The debate tonight affords them the opportunity to adjust any bias.  If Trump or Hillary Clinton slays the debate, there’s an immediate opportunity to adjust accordingly.  But if the polls are prejudicially skewed by the pollsters (say against Trump), and the debate is close to a draw and they have to adjust Trump’s support upwards, where does that leave them in explaining the late shift?  Late deciders are breaking for Trump?  That’s a tough pill to swallow given the build-up in the narrative to this point.

At this point one thing is clear, the post election poll analysis is going to be a lot to sift through, but it will probably be quite revealing, regardless of who actually wins the election.

Debate – a Trump Trap

By Dean L

Donald Trump is a genius. He did what he had to do in the debate last night because he has set himself up brilliantly going forward. At the end of the debate, as expected, everyone has retreated to their corners and claimed their candidate the victor.  That’s patently ridiculous. The debate itself has become somewhat akin to kabuki theater – each candidate plays to their voters or perceived ‘getable’ undecideds. This was moreso the case yesterday, despite 80 million viewers.

Who won the debate doesn’t matter; who helped their chances to win the White House is what matters, in that regard there is some analysis I can add to the blizzard of post analyses already out there today.

First let me summarize the post-game reviews. The consensus is that Hillary Clinton won on points. Trump won first30 minutes, Hillary won the next 30 minutes and the last 30 were fairly even with Hillary winning by a bit. But that’s debate points.  The debate winner doesn’t get a medal, let alone the White House.

As an aside the moderator Holt interrupted and fact checked Trump something like 13 times, at one point arguing with the candidate, and Hillary a total N’once’. Zero.  The same was true for crowd scoldings; he clearly had a bias for the Democrat and will be rewarded with possible medals from fellow media talking heads for tilting the floor in her direction.  He was not terrible, but he was not impartial.  To me, that’s not a pass.

Rush Limbaugh pointed out today that the media is measuring the debate by old standards.  He may be right. It’s too early to tell, but let me postulate this – it’s a trap.

Donald Trump did what he had to do – he stayed relatively even keeled and still stood up for himself. By being on the stage he proved he could behave in a way befitting the office.  More importantly, he did not go for the jugular of Clinton – a woman.  Doing so would have done him more harm than good.  By not doing so, he leaves room to go after her very hard in the next debates and allow him a pass when and if he does. He’s proved he could be civil, the media claims he lost – he has an excuse to go hard at her the next time.  He can be relentless because he’s behind and come off as tough but not get the bully label.

If that’s Donald Trump’s plan it’s truly brilliant and I would not put anything beyond the scope of his strategy.  The next debate will prove that to be true or mere speculation on my part.  I don’t think it is.

An Open Letter to Trump Supporters

As one who has not been on the Trump bandwagon, and one who could admittedly hop on, wave Trump's banner singing kumbaya, just to run with the herd, just to get along, may I point out something you may have missed in all your exuberance. This is not to take away from your exuberance, after all, your man won, your views have, in your own mind at least, been vindicated, and you've broken into your happy dance. Fine.

Lately, in social media, I have been inundated with a flood of, how shall I put this? …cretins who question my intellect, my patriotism, and my integrity based on, as near as I can translate from the Trumpwonese, "Neener, neener, our guy got more votes!", which is true, but to my point, irrelevant.

In a contest like the Super Bowl, two championship teams meet, play, and the one with the most points at the end of the game is declared the winner, with all the appropriate bragging rights. In this analogy, Trump has an entire cadre of people to inflate his balls for him. But does scoring the most points always guarantee a superior champion?

Settling your arguments by saying, "I won" sounds remarkably like another politician we all know. If your whole raison d'être for being a jerk and harassing Cruz supporters is that your guy won, does this then vindicate Barack Obama, who garnered more votes at least four times as state senator, US Senator and POTUS for two terms. Did winning more votes vindicate Obama's intellect, policies and character? Is "Neener, neener, our guy got more votes!" really the standard you want to set in politics? Really?

An Open Letter to Trump Supporters: Stick a Fork in Him, He’s Done


I am no Trump fan, but I have generally given him the benefit of the doubt, but I doubt no longer. Trump from 2008:
“Bush has been so bad. Maybe the worst president in this history of this country. He has been so incompetent, so bad, so evil, that I don’t think any Republican could have won”
Does this guy’s judgment match your own? Or when, in his estimation, George Bush attacked Iraq
“…just because he wanted to do it”
But wait! There’s more! To Greta Van Sustern:
His (Obama’s) speech was great last night. I thought it was inspiring in every way. And, hopefully he’s going to do a great job. But the way I look at it, he cannot do worse than Bush.
 It may sound trite, Donald, but,
“You’re Fired!”
At the risk of piling on, Trump is also the ‘rodeo clown’ who said of Charles Krauthammer, whose books the Donald has not read, perhaps because they have insufficient pictures?
(Krauthammer’s) “a totally overrated person that dislikes me personally. I’ve never met him. He’s a totally overrated guy, doesn’t know what he’s doing.”

Exotic Animals of the 2016 Campaign

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Martin O’Mallard, (Baltimorus Mayortoasticus), is a dabbling duck which, in this case, dabbles in politics. The mallard was one of the many bird species originally described by Carl Linnaeus in his 18th-century work, Systema Naturae, and still bears its original binomial name, not to be confused with metric, which is more characteristic of Lincolnae Democraticus.

The species is generally found west of the Chesapeake Bay area in the foggy swampland between Maryland and Virginia.

Mallards frequently interbreed with their closest relatives in the genus Anas, such as the American black duck, which accounts for a majority of the Baltimorus taxonomy. The rear of the male is black, with the dark tail having white borders. The bill of the male is generally past due.

 A noisy species, the male has a nasal call, not to be confused with a 3AM call.

A generally nondescript waterfowl, the Martin O’Mallard may not be all it’s quacked up to be, and may be easily decoyed with promises of cabinet positions.

Exotic Animals: Collect the whole set!
Chris Crizzlie
Joe Bydena
Donald Trumpetfish
Bernie Panders
Hillarymadillo
Mike Huccameleon
Jeb Bushbaby

Exotic Animals of the 2016 Campaign

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Jeb Bushbaby is a subspecies of Bushgeorgicus Americanae, or “little night monkeys” in Afrikaans, which can be found in Florida, Texas and occasionally as far north as Massachusetts. The typical Jeb Bushbaby migrates to a particularly cramped 3,000 sq. ft. lair in Kennebunkport during the summer months. Bushbabies have exceptional jumping abilities: into races, between positions, to conclusions and ‘the gun’.

Adult males maintain separate territories, which overlap with those of the female social groups, BushBarbarae Americanae. Males defer to the alpha female with surprising regularity.

Jeb Bushbabies learn largely by scent, communicating by marking their paths with urine. By following the scent of urine, they can land on exactly the same branch every time. This may explain their affinity for the unpleasantly malodorous Common Core. This may also explain more than one embarrassing press conference!

Affable and friendly, the Jeb Bushbaby is not unpleasant to have around, but the cumulative effect of their communication could gag a maggot.


Exotic Animals: Collect the whole set!
Chris Crizzlie
Joe Bydena
Donald Trumpetfish
Bernie Panders
Hillarymadillo
Mike Huccameleon

Exotic Animals of the 2016 Campaign

Image and video hosting by TinyPic 
 Seen in its natural habitat on an approach to a George Washington Bridge toll lane
 
The Chris Crizzlie Bear, Ursus Omniverae Horribilis , is found in New Jersey, ranging from Cape May to Newark. Sometimes mistakenly called “big boned”, the Crizzlie could easily hibernate two winters in a row without breaking a sweat! Population estimates based on hair-snagging, DNA-based inventories, mark-recapture, and a refined multiple regression model put sightings of the Crizzlie as far west as Iowa and as far north as New Hampshire.

The mainland grizzly is widespread, and is representative and archetypal for the whole subspecific group. Even so, classification is being revised along genetic lines. The Crizzlie bear has evidence of rhino DNA in its ancestry.

On interspecies competition, the relationship between Crizzlie bears and other predators is mostly one-sided; after severe storms, however, the Crizzlie has been known to cozy up to such as the Mid Atlantic Weasel, Obamanicus Daemocratus, to mutually scavenge any carrion washed up by the storm.

The Crizzlie is known for its occasional surly interactions with humans. It is best avoided in the wild. In captivity, it is easily distracted with food.

Exotic Animals: Collect the whole set!
Joe Bydena
Donald Trumpetfish
Bernie Panders
Hillarymadillo
Mike Huccameleon

Exotic Animals of the 2016 Campaign

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Joe Bydena, (Cassanovae Plagiaristmus), commonly known as a “laughing’ hyena, is, in reality, more of a “laughed at” hyena. Although phylogenetically closer to weasels, Joe Bydenas are behaviorally and morphologically similar to canines in several aspects; in other words, the Joe Bydena frequently acts like a dog. Both hyenas and canines are non-arboreal, cursorial hunters that catch prey from behind, sometimes massaging the shoulders of unsuspecting prey.

Hyenas groom themselves often, and are considered quite vain. They defecate in the same manner as other Carnivora, though they never stand when urinating, as urination serves no territorial function for them. Instead, hyenas mark their territories using their anal glands. In the wild, the Bydena has been known to imitate the calls of other alpha males, particularly the Welshae Coalminerimus

Hyenas are used for food and medicinal purposes in some areas, including Muslim nations under the Shafiite school, where hyenas are considered halal because of their omnivorous diet. This practice dates back to the times of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, who believed that different parts of the hyena’s body were effective means to ensure love and fertility. This differs somewhat from the Joe Bydena’s opinion that ALL parts of the hyena’s body were effective means to ensure love and fertility!

The Joe Bydena ideally sees itself as a pack animal, even leader of a pack, if it could only find a single pack that would accept it.

Exotic Animals: Collect the whole set!
Donald Trumpetfish
Bernie Panders
Hillarymadillo
Mike Huccameleon

Exotic Animals of the 2016 Campaign

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


The Mike Huccameleon, Rockandrollimus Wannabeae , is part of a distinctive and highly specialized clade of old world lizards. (Not to be confused with wizards, which the Huck’s church might frown upon.) Mike Huccameleons are distinguished by their zygodactylous feet; their very long, highly modified, rapidly extrudable tongues; their swaying gait and their ability to play bass guitar in garage bands.

Like snakes, chameleons do not have an eardrum. However, chameleons are not deaf: they can detect sound frequencies in the range of 200-600 Hz. Like I said…bass.

Smaller arboreal chameleons (both smaller species and smaller individuals of the same species) have recently been found to have proportionately larger tongue apparatuses than their larger counterparts, making them good for stump speeches and as talk show hosts.

Huccameleons are found in warm habitats that range from Arkansas to Iowa. As with most chameleons, the Mike Huccameleon is able to blend into his surroundings. His fiscal conservative coloration can be quite effective at a distance. Up close is another matter.

The Mike Huccameleon is a good natured creature and make an excellent pets. Although they have been known for decisions that come back to bite them.

Exotic Animals: Collect the whole set!
Donald Trumpetfish
Bernie Panders
Hillarymadillo

Exotic Animals of the 2016 Campaign

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Donald Trumpetfish, Apprenticus Televismus, is widespread throughout the tropical waters of western Atlantic Ocean from Florida to Brazil including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. It is found as far north as the cooler waters around Atlantic City.

The gills are pectinate, oddly enough resembling the teeth of a comb. Trumpetfish swim slowly, sneaking up on unsuspecting prey, or lying motionless, swaying back and forth with the wave action of the water. They are adept at camouflaging themselves and often swim in alignment with sharks, or other, larger fishes. They feed almost exclusively on smaller fish.

Although some Trumpetfish have been known to mate for life, the Donald Trumpetfish does not do well in captivity.

Exotic Animals of the 2016 Campaign

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Bernie Panders (Socialismus fulgens), also called “Red” or lesser panda, not to be confused with the lesser pander, which is associated with the Clinton Foundation. The Bernie Panders is a small arboreal mammal native to Vermont.

The specific epithet fulgens is Latin for “shining”, which may refer to the path taken by the reds. Panda is the French name for the Roman goddess of peace and travelers, whereas the Pander is more amenable to fellow travelers. The species is generally quiet except for some twittering, tweeting, and Facebook communication. It has been reported to be both nocturnal and crepuscular.

 Results of phylogenetic research and party affiliation indicate strong support for its taxonomic classification in its own family Progressivae, along with the weasel, raccoon and skunk families. Primarily the former and the latter.

The Bernie Panders is considered a living fossil and only distantly related to the giant pander (Stainedbluedressicus embarrasae).

Exotic Animals of the 2016 Campaign

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Hillarymadillos Showmethecashimus Serverblankimus, are New World Order placental mammals with a leathery armor shell. Because of this, Hillarymadillos prefer to be photographed only in soft focus. This armor-like skin ,although thin, appears to be the main defense of the Hillarymadillo, though some escape predatory reporters by fleeing, often into vans and prearranged photo ops, from which their armor protects them. When startled by honest questions, the species frequently roll up into a ball.

Hillarymadillos have been spotted in Illinois, as far south as Arkansas and primarily can be found in New York state. The Hillarymadillo has very poor eyesight and are prolific diggers. Many species use their sharp claws to grub for money, preferably gold and cash. Bearer bonds, Russian caviar and large speaking fees have been known to lure the species from its lair.

 Hillarymadillos are solitary animals that do not share.

Golden Oldie: Hillary Clinton & the Unintended Consequences of Raising the Minimum Wage

I heard last night that Hillary stiffed the wait staff at Chipotle for a tip. What is with Democrat millionaires who don’t have enough empathy to help someone make more than minimum wage when they’re serving them? I understand Obama is famous for not leaving tips as well. That got me to thinking about a very telling story Hillary told on the campaign trail in 2008, about a child whose waitress mother got a raise in the minimum wage, but got her hours cut back, so she wasn’t any better off. Here’s the post I ran back in February of 2013. Doesn’t sound as if Hillary has learned anything since then (other than how to wipe a server!):

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
I was originally thinking of including this example in the piece earlier today, about Obama’s demagoguery on the minimum wage, but I was having some difficulty finding it and confirming the details. The video seems to have disappeared.

On April 3rd 2008, Hillary Clinton was on the Tonight How with Jay Leno, where she told this anecdote: (Cafe Hayek still has the transcript)
I was in Indianapolis the other day and I was shaking hands after I spoke. And there was this young boy about eleven years old and he’s trying to tell me something—you know the crowd was yelling—so I leaned over and he said, “You know, my mom makes minimum wage and even though it went up, her hours were cut. So we’re not making any more money. Can you help her?”
At which point Hillary launched into platitudes and bromides about fixing the economy, ‘we can do better’, etc., but she overlooked a very important lesson: When the cost of anything goes up, you tend to buy less of it. The employer of this little boy’s mother did not have a bottomless stash of cash to dip into every time the government decrees that his employees are worth more than the market warrants. To hold expenses in check, the employer reduced the number of hours worked at the new inflated wage.

 Mr. Obama, too, presupposes that if the minimum wage is raised that those making minimum raise will automatically receive more money, when in reality, not only will they be receiving dollars made less valuable through inflation, but there is no guarantee that their hours will not be reduced, as happened with this woman, or eliminated entirely through layoffs.

It’s Official!

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Mitt Romney will not run in 2016. Whew! One down, how many to go?

Let me say what I have said time and time before. I believe that Mitt Romney is a good man. I congratulate and thank him for his prescient withdrawal from the 2016 race. I would love to see Mitt participate in a Republican victory in 2016, and think he could serve the nation well in a number of different cabinet level positions.

We shouldn't let this good man's experience go to waste. Having said that, he was not my choice in 2008. Truth be told, neither was John McCain. McCain was lacking in conservative bona fides, particularly when it came to economics. I don't know if Romney was done in by his supporters, but there was one Romneybot in particular who frequented Internet discussions and tried to hijack every thread, whenever he came across any meager crumb that favored Romney, and then regaled us with the inevitability of Romney taking the nomination. So, he had the distinction of not only being annoying but wrong. On top of that, instead of challenging McCain's policies, which I would have probably echoed and applauded, he chose to attack McCain personally, his military service, and going so far as calling him a traitor.

God save us from our friends.