This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter). Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon

Categories

Calendar

February 2024
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829  

Curmudgeon’s Corner: The Pentagon is not in Cleveland

On this week’s Curmudgeon’s Corner Ivan and Sam spend most of the show on Election 2016 again. On the Democratic side they talk about how after a short moment when it looked like he was embracing the inevitable, Sanders is once again fighting on against the odds. On the Republican side they discuss Trump’s victory, how we got to this point, how the Republican establishment will react, and what it all means for the general election. In addition to all that, there is also talk of the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, a county Democratic convention, Ivan’s travel… oh, and Sam’s 6 year old son Alex has some questions for the listeners.

Click below to listen or subscribe… then let us know your own thoughts!

CCCover20151125bw
Recorded 2016-05-04

Length this week – 1:42:04

1-Click Subscribe in iTunes
View Podcast in iTunes
View Raw Podcast Feed
Download MP3 File
Follow the podcast on Facebook

Show Details:

  • (0:00:10-0:12:20) But First
    • Ivan’s Flights
    • Alex’s Questions
    • Agenda
    • Delegate Confusion
  • (0:13:00-0:27:15) Election 2016: Democrats
    • Indiana Results
    • Sanders still fighting!
    • Annoying the superdelegates
    • Ways Clinton is Winning
    • Contested Convention?
    • Over Over Over
  • (0:28:35-1:03:29) Election 2016: Republicans
    • Indiana Results
    • Trump Ascendant
    • Cruz Drops Out
    • No Rules Changes
    • Last Trump/Cruz attacks
    • Trump is the Nominee
    • How did it happen?
    • How will elected Republicans respond?
    • Predicting November
    • Trump Win Scenarios
    • How big a Clinton win?
  • (1:04:32-1:18:55) White House Correspondents Dinner
    • Obama’s Routine
    • Boehner and House Divisions
    • Differences in Trump/Clinton surrogates
    • Potential Trump VPs
    • Wilmore’s Routine
  • (1:20:10-1:41:44) Snohomish County Democratic Convention
    • Reaction to Senator Murray and Rep Larson
    • Platform Nonsense
    • Reaction to Rep DelBene
    • Resolutions
    • Motion to Reject
    • How not to convince a superdelegate
    • iTunes Reviews

Curmudgeon’s Corner: Anyone who raises their hand!

On the Curmudgeon’s Corner podcast this week, most of the show is of course about the presidential election. Ivan and Sam discuss everything you would expect about Clinton, Trump, Sanders and Cruz. And Sam ran a caucus! But in addition, there is plenty of other good stuff about hard drives, Microsoft Tay, being sick, the 5th amendment, and more!

Click below to listen or subscribe… then let us know your own thoughts!

CCCover20151125bw
Recorded 2016-03-31

Length this week – 1:51:50

1-Click Subscribe in iTunes
View Podcast in iTunes
View Raw Podcast Feed
Download MP3 File
Follow the podcast on Facebook

Show Details:

  • (0:00:10-0:11:09) But First
    • Agenda
    • Sick People
    • Airplane WiFi
    • Work without Internet?
  • (0:11:45-0:34:25) Lightning Round
    • Microsoft Tay
    • Pakistan Bombing / Egyptian Hijacking
    • Obama Approval Ratings
    • Apple vs FBI
    • Phones not protected by 5th Amendment?
  • (0:35:28-0:56:10) Election 2016 – Democrats
    • Washington, Hawaii and Alaska
    • The Sanders Path
    • Sam Caucuses
    • Information Bubbles
  • (0:56:56-1:08:18) Hard Drive Bonus Segment
    • Ivan’s Problem
    • SSD vs Spinning Platter
    • Wirecutter
    • Alex Interlude
    • Separating Media
    • Backups
  • (1:09:38-1:51:30) Election 2016 – Republicans
    • Wisconsin Delegate Allocation
    • Upcoming States
    • Trump Insanity
    • Third Parties and the Pledge
    • Vice Presidential Selection
    • The Trump Insider
    • Trump Presidential Style
    • Rubio keeping delegates
    • Autocorrect

Curmudgeon’s Corner: Walk 5000 Steps

On this week’s Curmudgeon’s Corner Sam and Ivan hit all the things you would expect about Election 2016, the attacks in Brussels and the announcements at the latest Apple event. They also talk a bit about fitness, #ManInTree, Waze, Obama in Cuba and more! Even a bit about events in the Nixon administration!

Click below to listen or subscribe… then let us know your own thoughts!

CCCover20151125bw
Recorded 2016-03-24

Length this week – 1:51:13

1-Click Subscribe in iTunes
View Podcast in iTunes
View Raw Podcast Feed
Download MP3 File
Follow the podcast on Facebook

Show Details:

  • (0:00:00-0:02:52) Alex Prelude
  • (0:03:05-0:14:21) But First
    • Health
    • Fitness
    • Man In Tree
  • (0:15:01-0:56:58) Election 2016
    • Delegate Math
    • Types of Contested Conventions
    • Upcoming States
    • California
    • Virgin Islands
    • Delegate Selection Processes
    • Trump’s Lost Illinois Delegates
    • Clinton vs Trump
  • (0:58:02-1:06:19) Brussels
    • Belgian Citizens
    • Radicalization
    • History of Terrorism
    • Responses
  • (1:07:36-1:19:56) Brussels Part II
    • Overreactions
    • Suicide Bombings
    • IS Strategy
    • Cruz and Trump on Brussels
    • When it happens in the US
  • (1:20:35-1:33:43) Apple Stuff
    • No surprises
    • Android codenames
    • OS X codenames
    • FBI vs Apple update
  • (1:34:22-1:50:53) Lightning Round
    • TV Series: Minority Report (2015)
    • Obama in Cuba
    • Obama in Argentina
    • Nixon Administration on Drug War
    • Rob Ford

Curmudgeon’s Corner: Cheese in the Microphone

This week on Curmudgeon’s Corner Sam and Ivan start with a rant about Daylight Saving Time, then they talk about third parties, Brazil, Syria, Seaworld and the Supreme Court before diving into Election 2016 and all the craziness there. Oh, and Sam’s 6 year old son Alex keeps interrupting this week, so there is that fun too!

Click below to listen or subscribe… then let us know your own thoughts!

CCCover20151125bw
Recorded 2016-03-18

Length this week – 1:46:20

1-Click Subscribe in iTunes
View Podcast in iTunes
View Raw Podcast Feed
Download MP3 File
Follow the podcast on Facebook

Show Details:

  • (0:00:10-0:07:54) But first
    • Agenda
    • Saving Time
    • Fire?
  • (0:08:59-0:28:25) But second
    • New Snack? / Broken hand?
    • Why alone?
    • Feedback / Third Parties
    • ALeXMXeLA.com
  • (0:29:04-0:46:01) Mini Lightning Round
    • Cutting the cheese
    • Brazil Scandal
    • Russians withdraw from Syria
    • Seaworld Orcas
  • (0:47:05-0:59:32) SCOTUS
    • Certifiable Moderate
    • Wall Breaking Down Already
    • No hearings, unless Hillary
    • Troll moves, crying
  • (1:00:47-1:46:00) Election 2016
    • Cheese in the Microphone
    • March 15th results
    • Uncommitted Delegates
    • Rubio’s Delegates
    • Delegate Corruption
    • Trump encouraging riots?
    • Convention Shenanigans
    • Alex Clearing the shelves
    • Carson and Christie
    • Clinton still winning
    • Obama vs Trump

Democrats: Northern Marianas results, plus 2008 and 2012 comparison

On Saturday we got results from the Northern Mariana Islands. A whopping 6 delegates were at stake, so this almost wasn’t worth its own post, but here goes. Then we’ll follow it up with a quick comparison with 2008 and 2012.

Clinton won 4 delegates. Sanders won 2.

Since the post on the Michigan results between Michigan finalizing results and superdelegate preferences we have an additional net change of Clinton +2, Sanders -1.

So since the Michigan post, a total of Clinton +6, Sanders +1. So 85.71% of delegates to Clinton, way more than the 38.96% she needed to be on the glide path to the nomination.

chart-75

Clinton now needs 38.90% of the remaining delegates to win. Or more if a large number of superdelegates start to defect. But that hasn’t happened yet.

Yawn.

OK, since not much happening there, just a quick comparison of where Clinton and Sanders’ “% of remaining needed to win” is compared to Obama’s at similar points in 2008 and 2012. (For clarity, I’ve eliminated some oddness in the chart at the very end of the 2008 line when delegates were restored to states that had been stripped of them for rules violations and such.)

Screen Shot 2016-03-13 at 18.52.13422

The blue line is Obama in 2008. At this point he was still behind! He needed about 52% of the remaining delegates to win. He managed that of course, and ended up winning. Because of the competition from Clinton, Obama did not clinch the nomination until about 96% of the delegates had been determined.

The orange line was Obama in 2012 when he was unopposed. Aside from a few random protest delegates here and there he essentially collected 100% of delegates as soon as they became available, and clinched at the 50% mark.

Clinton 2016 so far is neatly splitting the difference. She is far far ahead of where Obama was in 2008, but of course not doing as well as she would if she was unopposed.

And then Sanders 2016. Notice that while Obama was behind at this stage, he was basically holding steady. He was not getting further and further behind with each new primary or caucus. Then right around when he hit the 50% mark, he started winning decisively, and caught up and won. Sanders is not holding the line. He is not keeping up. He keeps falling further and further behind the pace he would need to catch up and win. This is not what a come from behind victory looks like. This is what a stay behind loss looks like.

Of course if Sanders started winning every contest from here on out by large margins, then Clinton superdelegates might start abandoning her in droves and this graph COULD still change rapidly. If and when that happens, we’ll see it. But it hasn’t happened yet, and the longer this goes on, the less likely that becomes. It would require a DRAMATIC change in the the race. As I’ve said before, we’re talking something on the order of a new Clinton scandal that even Clinton die-hards think is disqualifying, or a major Clinton health issue, not just Sanders doing well and winning a few states.

[Update 2016-03-15 05:07 UTC – Revision to Kansas delegate results, plus superdelegate changes. Net: Clinton +4, Sanders +1]

[Update 2016-03-16 00:31 UTC – Superdelegate changes. Net: Clinton -1]

Note: This post is an update based on the data on ElectionGraphs.com. Election Graphs tracks both a poll based estimate of the Electoral College and a numbers based look at the Delegate Races. All of the charts and graphs seen in this post are from that site. Additional graphs, charts and raw data can be found there. All charts above are clickable to go to the current version of the detail page the chart is from, which may contain more up to date information than the snapshots on this page, which were current as of the time of this post. Follow @ElectionGraphs on Twitter or like Election Graphs on Facebook to see announcements of updates or to join the conversation. For those interested in individual general election poll updates, follow @ElecCollPolls on Twitter for all the polls as they are added.

Democrats: Super Tuesday pretty much as expected. What next?

Well, Super Tuesday is over except for a few straggling delegates that were not yet determined when it was time to start writing this post. So how did things end up? A lot of places will concentrate on “states won” and say that Clinton won 7 states and Sanders won 4. That’s well and good, but we’re going to look at what actually matters… the delegate totals.

First as a reminder, on Sunday I used current polling to predict where we would end up on delegates. Subtracting out “Delegates Abroad” which as it turns out won’t report results for a few more days, the polling suggested we would get results something like:

Estimate: 526 Clinton, 339 Sanders

And where are we actually? I’ll refrain from going through this state by state and just jump to the totals.

Actual: 504 Clinton, 335 Sanders, 26 TBD

The 26 TBD delegates are from Texas (19 delegates) and Tennessee (7 delegates). They could still split in such a way that the estimate ends up exactly correct. But even if it doesn’t, it will have been pretty close.

Bottom line is that the results are very closely in line with what would have been expected given the polling. No surprises here.

Where does that put our all important “% of remaining delegates needed to win” chart?

chart-60

Clinton now only needs 40.52% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. Sanders needs 59.54% of the remaining delegates to win.

Or of course large numbers of Clinton superdelegates have to start defecting to Sanders, which would raise Clinton’s number, and lower Sanders’ number. But there continues to be no sign of any such movement. And with Sanders continuing to lose the race for non-super delegates as well, it seems unlikely that a a big rush of “back the winner” movement will be heading Sanders’ way any time soon.

In the title of this post, I ask “what next?”. But even if Sanders had some “momentum” coming out of Super Tuesday (he really doesn’t) getting to 60% of the delegates in the coming contests would be a very tall order. His performance so far has been nowhere near that level. The Sanders folks may not be quite ready to admit it yet, but absent a Clinton implosion of historic proportions, the Sanders race for the nomination is over. If Sanders continues to fight on through the remaining contests, it isn’t to win, it is back to “making a point”, and “giving exposure to his issues”, and “moving the party towards him”, which was probably his original goal before he started doing a lot better than people originally expected. Those are legitimate reasons to continue a campaign. But it is not about winning the nomination.

What next? Clinton slowly but surely pushes her lead until she has 2,382 delegates and wins the nomination.

Before closing up, just a quick comparison:

Screen Shot 2016-03-02 at 16.07.06495

Although I didn’t produce the chart in exactly the same form when I did the analysis in 2008, a few minutes in Excel with the old data produced the equivalent chart for 2008. It is interesting to compare where we are.

First of all, at just over 30% of the delegates allocated, Clinton was still ahead in 2008! But it was much closer than things are today. She needed about 49% of the remaining delegates to win, compared to only needing about 41% today. Obama needed about 52% of the remaining delegates to catch up and win. Which he obviously did. At that point he already had about 47% of the delegates that were already allocated though… while Sanders only has about 29% of the delegates. (Both 2008 and 2016 numbers of course include superdelegates.) So while Obama was able to mount a come from behind win from this point in the delegate race, Sanders is far far behind where Obama was.

Sanders is now approximately where Clinton was when about 80% of the delegates had been determined. In 2008, that was in late April. The media was still talking about the Clinton/Obama race at that point, and hyping up increasingly outlandish scenarios where Clinton could still win, because a race is more interesting than having a clear winner, but anybody watching the numbers knew it was over at that point absent a catastrophic event.

In any case, back here in 2016, I will of course continue to watch the races and post updates after each contest. If a major event happens that changes everything and puts Sanders back on track to win you will see it here. Absent that though, we’re just going to be watching Clinton’s slow march toward mathematically clinching the nomination.

[Update 2016-03-03 02:17 UTC – Update on super Tuesday delegates. The 7 TBD delegates in Tennessee broke 6 for Clinton, 1 for Sanders. The 19 TBD delegates in Texas broke 12 for Sanders, 7 for Clinton. In addition in Minnesota the estimates were adjusted to give one less delegate to Sanders, and one more to Clinton. Net for this round of updates: Clinton +14, Sanders +12, bringing totals to Clinton 1060, Sanders 431, O’Malley 1. This does not substantively change the analysis above.]

[Update 2016-03-04 02:51 UTC – Superdelegate update: Net Clinton +2]

[Update 2016-03-05 16:41 UTC – Superdelegate update: Net Clinton +6]

[Update 2016-03-06 07:30 UTC – Final superdelegate update prior to results from March 6th states: Net Sanders +1]

Note: This post is an update based on the data on ElectionGraphs.com. Election Graphs tracks both a poll based estimate of the Electoral College and a numbers based look at the Delegate Races. All of the charts and graphs seen in this post are from that site. Additional graphs, charts and raw data can be found there. All charts above are clickable to go to the current version of the detail page the chart is from, which may contain more up to date information than the snapshots on this page, which were current as of the time of this post. Follow @ElectionGraphs on Twitter or like Election Graphs on Facebook to see announcements of updates or to join the conversation. For those interested in individual general election poll updates, follow @ElecCollPolls on Twitter for all the polls as they are added.

[Edit 16:44 UTC to actually answer the “What’s next?” from the title.]

Curmudgeon’s Corner: Conspiracy Machine

On this week’s Curmudgeon’s Corner podcast Sam and Ivan do indeed talk a lot about Election 2016 and all of the developments there, but there is other news this week too! So first off is a discussion of Apple vs the FBI, then an analysis of the battle following Justice Scalia’s death. Oh, and you get the story of Sam’s drive from Seattle to San Francisco, and a bit about the limitations of video streaming too!

Click below to listen or subscribe… then let us know your own thoughts!

CCCover20151125bw
Recorded 2016-02-19

Length this week – 2:16:56

1-Click Subscribe in iTunes
View Podcast in iTunes
View Raw Podcast Feed
Download MP3 File
Follow the podcast on Facebook

Show Details:

  • (0:00:10-0:31:57) But First
    • Sam in a Hotel
    • Agenda
    • New Microphone
    • Internet Quality
    • Sam’s Drive
  • (0:32:37-0:54:55) Apple vs FBI
    • The Order
    • Why Apple Refused
    • Why is FBI pushing this case?
    • What if Apple loses?
    • What if Apple wins?
    • Industry Implications
    • Slippery Slope
    • Politicians and Encryption
  • (0:55:58-1:21:14) Death of Justice Scalia
    • Ivan’s doppelgГ¤nger
    • The news breaks, people go nuts
    • Republican Senate says don’t even nominate
    • Higher stakes that previous vacancies?
    • Recess Appointment?
    • Does this damage Senate Republicans?
    • Who does Obama pick?
    • Hypocrisy?
    • Will the wall hold until January?
    • Impact of 4-4 Court
  • (1:22:34-1:40:01) Election 2016 – Democrats
    • Upcoming Contest Schedule
    • Nevada Polls
    • Election Graphs Comment
    • Superdelegates
    • Possible paths for Sanders
  • (1:40:50-2:08:09) Election 2016 – Republicans
    • The Latest Debate
    • Polling Update
    • Gaming out the next states
    • Trump trying to lose?
    • Trump lawsuit threats
    • Trump’s RNC Deal
    • Trump and the Pope
  • (2:09:18-2:16:36) Lightning Round
    • Obama going to Cuba
    • Steaming Video

Curmudgeon’s Corner: Only by the light of his phone

This week on Curmudgeon’s Corner Sam and Ivan concentrate on the Paris attacks and the worldwide reaction to them. This is a big enough topic that we spend most of the show on it rather than having several smaller topics. We hit on why Paris resonates more with Americans than terrorist attacks elsewhere, the Syrian connection or lack there of, the anti-refugee backlash, where things go from here, and more. Before that starts we do spend a few minutes on Sam’s power outage and Ivan’s driving habits… but really, this is a one topic show this time.

Click to listen or subscribe… then let us know your own thoughts!

CCCover20141121-bigheads-2
Recorded 2015-11-20

Length this week – 1:06:46

1-Click Subscribe in iTunes
View Podcast in iTunes
View Raw Podcast Feed
Download MP3 File
Follow the podcast on Facebook

Show Details:

  • (0:00:10-0:12:56) But First
    • Sam in the dark
    • Insurance Driver Tracking
    • Agenda
    • Generators
    • Food Going Bad
    • Showers
  • (0:13:40-0:36:44) Paris Attacks
    • Seeing Lights
    • Why does Paris resonate?
    • Syrian non-Connection
    • anti-Refugee reaction
    • Reflection on Republicans
    • Obama Reaction
  • (0:37:22-1:06:26) More Paris Reactions
    • Bombing ISIS
    • Eliminating the Grey Zone
    • Calling it Radical Islamic Terrorism
    • Xenophobia + Islamophobia = Good Politics?
    • Comparing Risks
    • What next?
    • If it happens here
    • non-Encryption connection
    • Parallels to Gun Debate
    • Presidential Candidates on Paris/ISIS/Refugees

Curmudgeon’s Corner: Slap us until we shut up!

In the latest Curmudgeon’s Corner Sam and Ivan talk about:
* Twitter Favorites / Sam Computer Issues
* Iran Deal Concluded
* GHWB / Obama Accomplishments / Pluto!
* Greece Again
* Lightning Round
* * Reddit
* * Cosby
* * Uber
* * Election 2016
* * iTunes Bug
* * Cuba tourism

CCCover20141121-bigheads-2
Recorded 2015-07-16

Length this week – 1:47:57

1-Click Subscribe in iTunes
View Podcast in iTunes
View Raw Podcast Feed
Download MP3 File
Follow the podcast on Facebook

Edit 2015-07-24 15:42 to remove extra line.

Day of Tears

jacobsoboroff_2015-Jun-27

Yesterday was a powerful day. Gay marriage has never been one of “my issues”*, but I was caught up in the emotion of Friday’s decision anyway. I was at home getting ready for work when the decision hit. Within seconds waves and waves of people I follow on Twitter and Facebook were exploding in joy. People happy to be recognized as people. People telling their stories of going from being excluded to being accepted. People just happy in the moment. I found the tears flowing freely for most of the morning, at least until I pulled myself together when I got to work. :-)

Later in the day Obama spoke at the funeral of Reverend Pinkney, who was killed in the terrorist attack in Charleston last week. If you haven’t seen it, go watch it now. This is Obama at his best. This is the aspirational Obama. This is the Obama calling out the hurt and pain of those who have been victims. This is Obama calling out the need for progress and improvement, and yes, change. This was the Obama that I voted for in 2008. It was powerful, it was moving. I was once again in tears for much of the speech.

Yes, there are policy questions raised by Obama’s speech and many may disagree on parts of it. Should there be more restrictions around gun ownership or use and how does that balance against people’s right to self-defense or sport? What are the right ways to address systematic racism in our society? How can we bridge some of the obvious gaps in our society? Is there a role for government, or is this better managed in the private sphere? Reasonable people can disagree on these things, but that was not the real point. It was about mourning, solidarity, understanding, and the need to recognize and actually do something about real problems.

And yes, there are legitimate arguments over process questions on gay marriage. Should the court really be the one to decide this? Were the specific legal grounds they used sound? As the day progressed and I started seeing more and more from the people upset by this decision, there was sometimes a veneer of these sorts of arguments, but it always seemed to ring hollow. Most of these folks didn’t REALLY care about how the decision was made. They just didn’t want gays to be able to marry. But at least they tried to hide it.

In the mean time, many others thought this was a good time to show off their intolerance, insensitivity, and closed mindedness. Although I heard many YOUNG Republicans joining in the joy of their gay and lesbian fellow citizens, or showing a sense of respect and understanding toward racial issues, none of the Republican presidential candidates were even close.

Reactions to marriage ranged from Jeb Bush saying he supports traditional marriage but the court has spoken to Huckabee in a full out intolerant tirade, to Walker suggesting a constitutional amendment, to Jindal suggesting (jokingly?) that we should just get rid of the Supreme Court altogether. Not one could say, “This is good!”.

On Charleston the echos of last week’s cowardice and reluctance to call out the racist culture leading to the attack still resonate. When comments did eventually come they seemed half-hearted and reluctant at best. Come on now.

I often find myself looking for the “reasonable Republican” because I’m not particularly happy with Democrats a lot of the time. After being an Obama supporter in 2008, I could not bring myself to vote for him in 2012. (I voted 3rd party, Romney wasn’t even a consideration.) I am not a Clinton fan, and don’t particularly want to vote for her. On certain issues I find myself attracted to Republican or Libertarian minded positions. I want to have a reasonable debate between alternatives that results in a compromise that turns out to be better all around. When I go to vote, I want to feel like I have more than one reasonable choice.

But then we have days and weeks like this. The worst parts of the Republican base come out, and the LEADERS, the Presidential candidates, the Senators, the Governors, do nothing to separate themselves from those people. Some of them actively encourage it and egg it on. I have voted for Republicans before. I hope to vote for Republicans again. I have prided myself as being non-partisan, someone who could vote for either party so long as they had a good candidate with interesting ideas that I could get behind.

But as I said in this week’s Curmudgeon’s Corner podcast, so long as the Republican party is still a welcoming place to racists, homophobes, xenophobes, and science deniers, let alone if they are LED by those folks, then they are just pushing me further and further into the arms of Democrats. Any positive aspects to any particular policies pushed by any one Republican get completely outweighed by the thought that by supporting that candidate, I might enable not just those things, but a whole raft of things I vehemently disagree with.

Yesterday I was moved to tears twice by “the left” and felt positive and affirmed.

Yesterday each time “the right” spoke, I shook my head in shame and disgust.

Good job guys. You may be strengthening parts of your base, but you are alienating the middle. And you need us to win.

* My “real” position on marriage is that I don’t understand why government is involved in or recognizes any marriage at all, other than as a contract entered into between adults, just like any other contract drawn up between people, and that it shouldn’t have any implications to anything else. As far as the state is concerned anyway. But that isn’t how things are. So long as government does recognize marriage and there are legal and financial implications to marriage, as well as cultural and social ones, then I feel it should be wide open to whoever wants to participate.