Against Siege Warfare by the Dictatorship of the Experts, Trump should replace Ginsburg with a Bitch, not a Barrett

Progressives insist Ginsburg is doing just fine after breaking three ribs.

Going by actuarial tables and basic medical sense she is most likely “doing fine” in the sense Soviet news outlets reported Andropov was in “excellent health” following treatment for kidney failure. Yuri died a year later.

Continue reading “Against Siege Warfare by the Dictatorship of the Experts, Trump should replace Ginsburg with a Bitch, not a Barrett”

Advertisements

A Good Midterm for Trump

Good results for Trump, my election forecasting methodology, and my suggested strategy for closing the gap with Democrats that I put forward this June and which Trump adopted.

To gain information about what to expect in House elections would unfold I used a combination of statewide trends in Senate races as proxy samples for House contests and the 2006 midterms to set an upper boundary for Democrat performance.

My methodology was consistent with Democrats gaining a narrow House majority. It was also very accurate predicting Senate races, correctly anticipating strong Republican turnout, and Republicans being in the game for close governor races.

From Trump’s perspective he can rightly point out GOP House losses were moderate compared to losses other two-term Presidents had to deal with. He can claim victory thanks to defying expectations in the upper chamber with a reinforced Senate majority.  He can also use Pelosi as a punching bag (balanced with a strategy of giving her enough rope to hang herself and her own caucus) for the next two years by playing wedge issues that divide establishment Democrats like her against their radical Progressive base.

Continue reading “A Good Midterm for Trump”

House Midterm Forecast Model – Too Close to Call

If for no other reason, GOP control of the House is worth hoping for just to observe the Progressive psychological meltdown that will follow.

But will you get to see it?

Using my election model (which if you haven’t read it, see here, so you can follow this article), it could go either way in the House.

Continue reading “House Midterm Forecast Model – Too Close to Call”

Prediction Modeling Control of the House with Boundary Conditions & Proxy Sampling via Senate Races

The predictive model I will use on Monday to get a feel for who will control the House is built around a boundary condition and proxy sampling.

The boundary condition, based on historical data, will set an upper limit for the best case Democrats can expect in the House.

I will use Senate races as a proxy sample for useful information about late trends affecting the House.

Senate races will be looked at from two perspectives to gather information about two categories of election trends affecting the House downstream from trends in the Senate –

1) Senate campaigns will be categorized by region of the country to get a feel for any national or regional trends breaking in favor of either Republicans or Democrats. From Senate trends I will estimate by proxy sampling trends for House races.

2) Senate campaigns will be categorized by whether the state holding an election is historically Republican leaning, Democrat leaning, or evenly divided. This category will be used to estimate by proxy levels of Republican and Democratic turnout in House races as well as estimate what direction Independents are breaking.

As for sampling methodology, if mainstream political analysts weren’t crackpots I would be surprised they adopted the crackpot idea that Senate trends are decoupled from House trends. Since they are crackpots I can only say they are staying true to form by wrongly thinking there is no statistical relationship between how contests will unfold in the Senate and House.

Pragmatically Distributed will assume there is a connection based on historical results. Past midterms show that outcomes in the Senate are mirrored in the House because competitive Senate races are geographically representative samples of the national vote.

The exception to this rule have been draws where there was no significant change in the partisan makeup of Congress.

This year’s Senate races are, as usual, geographically dispersed well enough across the country that I can use Senate trends in the last day or two as a proxy for the House. This is advantageous because direct polling in Congressional districts is tricky due to their often being drawn in odd twists and turns.

Continue reading “Prediction Modeling Control of the House with Boundary Conditions & Proxy Sampling via Senate Races”

Where Military-Industrial Power Counts, Trump is the Greatest Foreign Policy President since Reagan

G7-Gipfel in Kanada

 

Where it doesn’t count because they have nothing at risk, Western Europe and Canada, Trump is the worst.

Continue reading “Where Military-Industrial Power Counts, Trump is the Greatest Foreign Policy President since Reagan”

Returning the Preemption of Rogue Nuclear Programs Back to Constitutional Government

s

 

But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.

[…]

Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.

Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a wellregulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.

Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage, and made a conquest of the commonwealth.

Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II. found means to accomplish that formidable league,9 which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic.

The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV.

In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the predominant pursuit of that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have been more frequently engaged in war; and the wars in which that kingdom has been engaged have, in numerous instances, proceeded from the people.

There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars.

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers : No. 6

However long the exile in peace, limited Democratic nations composed of free men always return to slaughtering their neighbors in wars of aggression for the sake of commerce.

Among the top Nationalistic priorities of the American commercial Republic is the consistent enforcement of a policy of preemptive strikes, initiated by ourselves or by a regional ally, to destroy the nuclear programs of rogue governments before those programs are completed.

We will demonstrate that a preemptive airstrike is worthwhile even if we can assume nuclear armed rogue governments have no intention whatsoever of using their weapons.

Or, if airpower alone is not enough to destroy the program for whatever reason, then some combined arms operation involving air, land, and sea forces to quickly go in after the weapons and then get the hell out.

Of course, if we can’t assume the chances of their use is zero (it isn’t) the argument for preemptive measures is even stronger.

Whether rogue governments intend to use nuclear weapons or not, Federalist anti-proliferation policy remedies both possibilities with wonderful simplicity: Enemy states cannot threaten America or our alliance system with nuclear weapons if they do not have nuclear weapons.

Although this policy can be equally applied against chemical and biological capabilities, nuclear programs are above all the highest priority in anti-proliferation because of the limits to the effectiveness of chemical and biological agents.

Bio-warfare and chemical warfare were researched extensively by America and the Soviet Union at research centers such as Fort Detrick, Maryland and, in Russia, VECTOR. Both forms of warfare produced mixed results primarily because of limits to delivery mechanisms and lack of certainty over how widespread an outbreak zone would be due to factors such as weather conditions, geography, etc. Nuclear weapons remain the most dangerous WMD of all because of the certainty of what the impact zone is regardless of weather and other obstacles to the effectiveness of biological and chemical arsenals.

The example America should follow is the one set by Israel in the 1981 against Saddam Hussein’s facilities at Osirak and their strike against Syria’s program in 2007.

The example we want to avoid is President Bill Clinton’s when his Administration did not attack (and did not allow India to attack) Pakistan’s nuclear program in the mid-1990s and when his Administration did not strike North Korea’s nuclear program in 1994. The time when they had not yet produced bombs was when they were most vulnerable to an American attack (or an attack indirectly supported by America) that would have come at a much lower cost than they would today.

Continue reading “Returning the Preemption of Rogue Nuclear Programs Back to Constitutional Government”

Robber Baron Capitalism in Four Lessons – Part III: The Report on the Manufactures Revisited

coronation_of_mckinley

 

“In the days of Henry Clay, I was a Henry Clay-tariff-man and my views have undergone no material change on that subject.”

Letter from Lincoln to Edward Wallace, May 12, 1860

“During my whole political life, I have loved and revered Clay as a teacher and leader.”

Lincoln, July 6, 1852

“Give us a protective tariff, and we shall have the greatest nation on earth.”

Lincoln, 1847

“Such are some of the items of this vast system of protection, which it is now proposed to abandon. We might well pause and contemplate, if human imagination could conceive the extent of mischief and ruin from its total overthrow, before we proceed to the work of destruction. Its duration is worthy, also, of serious consideration. Not to go behind the Constitution, its date is coeval with that instrument. It began on the ever memorable 4th day of July the 4th day of July, 1789. The second act which stands recorded in the statute book, bearing the illustrious signature of George Washington, laid the cornerstone of the whole system. That there might be no mistake about the matter, it was then solemnly proclaimed to the American people and to the world, that it was necessary for “the encouragement and protection of manufactures,” that duties should be laid.

[…]

Mr. Hamilton, surveying the entire ground, and looking at the inherent nature of the subject, treated it with an ability which, if ever equalled, has not been surpassed, and earnestly recommended protection.”

Henry Clay before the United States Senate on the National System, February 2, 3, and 6; 1832

“If the system of perfect liberty to industry and commerce were the prevailing system of nations—the arguments which dissuade a country in the predicament of the United States, from the zealous pursuits of manufactures would doubtless have great force. It will not be affirmed, that they might not be permitted, with few exceptions, to serve as a rule of national conduct. In such a state of things, each country would have the full benefit of its peculiar advantages to compensate for its deficiencies or disadvantages. If one nation were in condition to supply manufactured articles on better terms than another, that other might find an abundant indemnification in a superior capacity to furnish the produce of the soil. And a free exchange, mutually beneficial, of the commodities which each was able to supply, on the best terms, might be carried on between them, supporting in full vigour the industry of each. And though the circumstances which have been mentioned and others, which will be unfolded hereafter render it probable, that nations merely Agricultural would not enjoy the same degree of opulence, in proportion to their numbers, as those which united manufactures with agriculture; yet the progressive improvement of the lands of the former might, in the end, atone for an inferior degree of opulence in the mean time: and in a case in which opposite considerations are pretty equally balanced, the option ought perhaps always to be, in favour of leaving Industry to its own direction.

But the system which has been mentioned, is far from characterising the general policy of Nations. The prevalent one has been regulated by an opposite spirit.

The consequence of it is, that the United States are to a certain extent in the situation of a country precluded from foreign Commerce.”

Alexander Hamilton, The Report on the Manufactures, December 1791

Continue reading “Robber Baron Capitalism in Four Lessons – Part III: The Report on the Manufactures Revisited”