How My Predictions Worked Out

My last post was my election predictions. With this post, I examine how I did. In a word: I was correct in my direction, but not in the magnitude of the move.

I first said:

The Republican party already controls the House of Representatives, 233 to 199, with three vacancies. I predict the Republicans will maintain control and will extend their majority to around 246 to 185.

This they did. The current count at Real Clear Politics is 243 Republicans, 179 Democrats, with 13 seats not yet decided. Of the ones I could find data for, the Republican candidate was in the lead in five. That would bring the total to 248 for them. If so, I was very, very close with this.

Next I said:

When the election is over the Republicans will have won 52 [Senate] seats...the Republican caucus will be 55 members....

As of right now, the number are 52 Republicans, 45 Democrats, with three not yet decided. Of those three, two seem to favor the Republicans, which would bring the total to 54-45 (plus one Independent). So, again, I was close, predicting the direction but not the magnitude of the move. It was stronger for the Republicans than I predicted.

Then I said"

...what percentage of Americans will be governed by which party...it will be darn close to a 50-50 split, regardless of the number of states involved...the margins in these elections will generally be closer than in 2010....

Here I was off. With a couple of races still to be decided (in states with small populations), it appears the split will be 60% of the population with Republican governors, 40% with Democratic governors. The two that shifted this were Florida and Illinois (and to some extent Massachusetts), which went Republican when I figured they would stay Democratic. So I was off on this one.

And last I said:

As to state legislatures...the status quo will prevail...no legislature to change majorities.

Data on these races is probably still coming in, but the Washington Post reports this:

"Before Election Day, the GOP controlled 59 of 98 partisan legislative chambers across the country. On Tuesday, preliminary results showed Republicans had won control of both the Nevada Assembly and Senate, the Colorado Senate and state House chambers in Minnesota, New Mexico, Maine, West Virginia and New Hampshire. That would give the party control of 67 chambers, five more than their previous record in the modern era, set after special elections in 2011 and 2012."

So, once again, I missed this part of the election decision by voters. I didn't see, in polling data or in any type of public outcry, a movement toward the Republican Party at this level. I'm trying to assess for myself what this means going forward. In my book The Candy Store Generation I said I was waiting for The Had Enough Generation to rise up and wrest control from the idiots who lead my generation, the Baby Boomers. I wonder if maybe we are seeing the beginning of that.

Should I hang up my whiteboard, and quit making election predictions? It's fun to do, but a little risky. Not that I really have anything on the line by taking that risk.

Election Predictions

After having had so much success predicting the outcomes of elections, I should retire from the business. I suspect it can only go downhill from here. But perhaps that is a cowardly thing to do.

I didn't follow what was going on all that closely for quite a while, being rather tired of politics and being occupied with a number of other things, but in the last month I have. With political commercials dominating television and radio, it's difficult to just tune it out. So, here goes.

The big enchilada in this election is control of Congress. The Republican party already controls the House of Representatives, 233 to 199, with three vacancies. I predict the Republicans will maintain control and will extend their majority to around 246 to 194.

In the Senate, where currently the Democratic party holds a 53 to 45 majority, with the two independent senators caucusing with the Democrat, it's clear the Republicans are going to make gains. How much? Will they take control? The polls suggest they will. I've been watching the polls for the possibility of overstatement—that is, of sensing movement in one direction and overstating the amount of that movement. I've seen that often in the past. This year, however, I don't see it. The polls have been steadily favoring the Republican senate candidates, without much movement. The exception to that is Iowa, where the latest poll predicts too much movement toward the Republican candidate. I think she's going to win there, but not by the margins the last poll suggest. So I think the polls of the Real Clear Politics website have it about right. When the election is over the Republicans will have won 52 seats. Moreover, by the time all elections and runoffs are settled, I believe the Republican caucus will be 55 members, as one senator will change parties and one or two independents will caucus with the Republicans.

I'm not following the governor races all that closely. The polls suggest the Republicans will control more governorships after the election than before. That may be true, but I generally look at gubernatorial elections from the perspective of what percentage of Americans will be governed by which party. My sense is that, after this election, it will be darn close to a 50-50 split, regardless of the number of states involved. But, I also believe the margins in these elections will generally be closer than in 2010 (the last year that involves these states).

As to state legislatures, I really have no data on which to base a prediction. The absence of news, and of an issue or personality to drive voters in a direction, leaves me to believe the status quo will prevail. In other words, I expect no legislature to change majorities. Those currently governed by Democrats will stay so; same for Republicans. Where there is mixed government, you might see one party win the other house in their state. It will actually be in the state races where any type of groundswell that would suggest something for future elections will take place. If you see movement in either party's total share of all the state legislature positions, this may indicate a sense of the electorate going into 2016 and beyond.

Well, that's my view from fly-over country. Maybe on Thursday I'll post how I did.

A Political Off-Year

They say this is an election year, but an "off-year" election. That is, a president is not being elected, so interest in the election is expected to be less, with voter turnout lower than it would be in a presidential election year. That's the way it's always been in American elections.

Last election I published The Candy Store Generation. I had this out in July, and made predictions for the November elections. Those predictions were amazingly accurate: exact for president, exact for the House, off a little for the Senate. I had actually made accurate predictions in 2004, and in most years when I looked at the situation and thought it through.

I believe I was able to do this, beating such pundits as Karl Rove and Dick Morris, and the whole crew at MSNBC, because I predicted with my head and not my heart, and because I accurately considered what my own generation was like and how they would vote. I was listening to the world around me, taking in data from whatever sources were available, and making a decision of what I thought would happen, not what I wanted to happen. It seems that too many of the talking heads on news channels and talk radio predict with their hearts. They want a certain something to happen, and based on that they self-filter the data to prove what they want. They may be doing this subconsciously, but I suspect a lot of it is purposeful, hoping to move public opinion to what they want to happen.

So what about this election? What's going to happen? I actually haven't been following it close enough to make a prediction. I'm looking at data now, especially polling data. What I've noticed in the past that, when a political trend is rapidly developing, the polls tend to shift quickly and excessively toward that trend. Then, a short while later, the polls swing back to correctly measure baseline public opinion. It's as if people are caught up in the news and tell the pollster what the news is telling them, but later think better of it and return to the position they've always had. In a slower trend, it seems to me that the polls are more likely to be correct. I could give several examples showing both of these, but won't take up space with it.

At present the news for the administration and the nation is all bad. Multiple problems, foreign and domestic, beset the Obama administration. Congress seems mostly ineffective and lazy. A slowly growing economy, growth that is not expanding the employed labor force in any significant way, is mitigating some of the problems. If anything, Americans seem somewhat more apathetic than normal. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to assess this data, but my best guess is that the polls are over-predicting, by a small amount, the dissatisfaction of the electorate.

I thought about issuing a new edition of The Candy Store Generation to include a short chapter on what I think will happen this election. That would be risky, but I should have done that. It's too late to do that now, but not too late to make predictions and post them here. I'm still not quite ready to do that, but may do so before the election is here.

No promises, but stay tuned.

America. What Would the World Be Like Without Her?

That is the question asked in D'Nesh D'Souza's latest film of that title. Lynda and I saw that in the theater a couple of weeks ago. He chose five items that are often criticisms for how the USA developed and carried itself in the world, and sought to answer those criticisms. The were such things as stealing the land from the native peoples, allowing slavery, having a capitalist system that steals wealth from people.

Recently, on Mike Huckabee's weekend program on the Fox News Channel, D'Souza was on opposite Richard Dreyfus to argue the merits of the film. It was an interesting segment. Dreyfus, who was on through a remote feed, had his arms crossed, showing body language that said he didn't want to be there. His two main points against the film were: 1) Americans aren't taught history and civics any more, and so there's no way to properly evaluation the merits of the film; and 2) D'Souza never answered the question about what the world would be like without America.

D'Souza, who was in-studio with Huckabee, had a generally more upbeat and open body language than Dreyfus. At first he ignored Dreyfus' charge that the movie didn't answer his own question. The second time Dreyfus said that, D'Souza said, "I'll answer it right now." He said that before the USA came into existence, nations advanced through what he calls the conquest epoch. They took territory by war, subjugated peoples, stole their land, enslaved them, and stole their wealth. America, however, established wealth building as the means for nations to advance. Slowly the nations of the world are coming around to this.

While enjoying the film, and being in general sympathy with it, I must agree with Dreyfus that the film didn't answer that quest, at least not directly and with a firm statement. It talked about the conquest epoch, and how the USA was the first nation to truly move away from it. The film did not, however, go on to state that this example was being copied by the world, or that if America had never formed the world would still be dominated by the conquest epoch.

I sort of sensed that was where D'Souza was going as I watched the movie. His concept of the conquest epoch had been on my mind lately. I thought of all the wars that were fought—are still being fought—in the world, for the gain of some nation at the loss of others. I thought back to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the devastating consequences that has perpetrated on the world. I look at the break up of the Soviet Union, beginning about the same time, and how fighting continues in places such as the Ukraine and Chechnya. Now you have the fighting going on between Gaza and Israel, right next to where they Syrians are in a civil war, right next to Lebanon, which was war-torn for decades. It's the conquest epoch. People want to be free of something or someone, someone else doesn't want that to happen, and war results. I'm tired of war.

Given how much war there is in the world right now, at a supposedly civilized time, I wonder how well the USA is doing in being an example for the world.

So Much News, So Little Time

It seems of late that many things are happening in the world that I care about, and that attract my attention. I hear a news story and I think, "I could write a good blog post about that." But having gone to a twice a week posting schedule, how can I get it all in?

For example, in the national news is the story about the Supreme Court decision on Hobby Lobby, where religious freedom is said to trump certain government mandates. Or, stated another way, the government can't mandate something that compliance with will cause someone to violate their religious convictions. The full fallout from this decision isn't known. Yet, it's a prominent news story that's deserving of attention.

Then there are the scandals that are plaguing the Obama Administration. Phony scandals the president calls them. Real scandals the press calls them, at least that part of the press that is covering them. Revelations come weekly in the IRS and VA situations, revelations that make government mismanagement or misconduct seem more and more certain. What happened in Benghazi has never been fully explained. The situation on the Mexican border is pathetic. Any one of these things could justify a post with political analysis.

Closer to my own world, a couple of things about writing and publishing are making major headlines. Don't look for them on the evening news or in the New York Times. They aren't big nationally, but they are among writers. The negotiations between Amazon and Hachette continue. The very people who are upset at Amazon for driving down prices are now upset with them for failing to discount Hachette books, saying that they have lost sales as a result. And still we don't know for sure, because the negotiations are taking place with a non-disclosure agreement, exactly what the issues are. Some say Amazon is trying to strong-arm Hachette; some think Hachette is trying to force Amazon to charge higher prices. We still wait on the conclusion to and fallout from this.

And, in still other news, on July 1 the NY public library held a panel discussion/forum on Amazon and its impact on the book world. The panel included James Patterson, who has been an outspoken critic of changes that are occurring in publishing, changes he doesn't like. He said bookstores and libraries are threatened. He wants the government to take action. Mind you, he's never said what action he wants the government to take. I can only presume he wants some kind of law that either reigns in Amazon or otherwise props up book prices. How that would help libraries I don't know. It's also possible he might want e-book prices significantly raises or their distribution curtailed. Maybe the latter will help libraries.

Also on the panel is an intellectual property attorney named David Vandergriff. He runs a blog popular among self-publishers, called The Passive Voice, and he is known as the Passive Guy. I read his blog daily and comment from time to time. He posted a summary of the panel and his impressions of his fellow panelists and what they seem to think the condition of the publishing industry is. Very insightful. I commented on the thread. Comments are still being posted by PG's loyal followers, with a few drive-by, non-engagement posts by one woman who disagrees with PG.

I haven't listened to the recording of the panel discussion yet, but will do so, probably next Monday. The gist of it is: the publishing industry is in trouble; Amazon is the reason; something must be done. However, the big five publishers in the USA are making good profits, perhaps even record profits. Discounting by Amazon is driving sales to them. E-books are more profitable than print books. So what's the problem? The problem is that Amazon is such a big bookseller that the publishing industry doesn't like it.

Everyone seems to be predicting the fall of Big Publishing. I don't see it myself. Printers should be concerned, as e-book's growing share of the market will shrink their work. Booksellers should be concerned (especially Barnes & Noble), as people are discovering the ease of on-line shopping. But publishers don't look to me to be in trouble. What could hurt publishers? Only two things that I can see.

1. The fail to embrace new technology and methods.
2. Writers, including big name writers, begin abandoning them in droves in favor of self-publishing.

I don't see the latter happening in the next five years, probably not in the next ten years. The world has too many writers wanting to break into publishing that, even if more and more authors choose the self-publishing route, plenty of other writers will willingly step into their places.

However, I do see big publishing failing to embrace technology, in the form of e-books. They want e-book prices high to prop up the print book market. If e-books cost $15 and hardbacks cost $25, people will still buy hardbacks. But if e-books are $5 and hardbacks $25, fewer hardbacks will be sold. Already the print market is stagnant while the e-book market is still growing. Yet Big Publishing insists on keeping e-book prices high—even colluded with Apple to make that happen—so as to save the print book market. They don't seem to realize that their insistence on high prices are driving book buyers to the self-published market, where e-books typically sell for half (or less) of what Big Publishing charges, and where paperbacks, even at print-on-demand prices, are undercutting hardbacks enough to take market share.

This type of behavior will sink the publishing industry, eventually. When? I can't predict that, but again I doubt it will have significant impact in the next five years. Ten years? Perhaps. Quite a few more things have to happen before the decline comes.

The Definition of Insanity: Iraq

I try not to get political on this blog. My other blog is about my writing career. This blog is about other aspects of my life: my activities, ideas, and opinions. Yet, I try to leave politics and controversial current events out of it. But I feel that I have to weigh in on the current situation in Iraq.

An al Qaeda offshoot, a Sunni Moslem group, is undertaking military-style operations in Iraq, working their way down from the north of the country toward Baghdad, conquering towns and cities and territory. Reports are that the Iraqi army, which is an arm of the current Shiite majority government, is laying down its arms, ditching its weapons, and going home—not putting up a fight at all. I'm at the point where I don't know that I want to believe news reports. But assuming this is true, the pundits are saying that the USA needs to step in and stop this insurgency from taking over Iraq.

I can't help but think back over Iraqi history. The modern nation of Iraq was formed around 1922, when British and French leaders, in the aftermath of World War 1, carved up the Middle East into modern style nation states without much consideration of ethnic, racial, national, or political considerations. I think the Iraq and Iran borders were formed mainly based on oil interests. They did the same thing in Europe, if you remember. World War 2 was fought in part because of those decisions. The civil war in Yugoslavia and the action in Kosovo were also to rectify some of those decisions. It has taken a little longer for the Arabs and Persians and other nationalities in the Middle East to seek to rectify things.

Iraq was a hodgepodge of ethnic/religious groups. Kurds in the northeast, Sunnis in the west, Shiites in the east, marsh Arabs in the south who actually belonged to none of the above. The Shiites were in the majority. Yet, it was the Sunni dominated Baathist party who took control of Iraq in the 1960s (I think; or was it the 50s?). Sadam Hussein came to power as a Baathist in 1979, and in 1980 plunged Iraq into war with Iran. Since then, Iraq has been constantly at war, with a year here and there of peace. That's 34 years of warfare. Sadam was deposed. Immediately the pressure to break up the nation began. Kurds wanted their own state. Shiites wanted their majority to be in control. Sunnis were afraid that after their 30 or more years of oppressive minority control that they would be dealt out of the new government, or worse, executed (religiously cleansed) by the Shiites.

The problem with an independent Kurdistan is that much of eastern Turkey is majority Kurds, as is northwest Iran. If you carve Kurdistan out of Iraq, how long before you have civil wars in the other two countries? Yes, in 1922 there should have been an independent Kurdistan formed, yet another mistake of the British and French idiots who thought they knew better than the rest of the world.

In Iraq, the Shiites won elections and formed the government, but included in it the Sunnis and Kurds. Once the USA pulled the last of its troops out, the Shiites removed the Sunnis and Kurds from the government. Now the Sunnis, working through this ISIS group, are trying to take control by conquest where they have failed by the ballot. And now people want the USA to stop the ISIS conquest. So far the president has put a few hundred military "advisors" into the country. Maybe they're truly advising, or maybe they're protecting the US embassy. But supposedly he's thinking about other options, including drones and manned air strikes. After that carnage takes place, who knows what else? For some reason, this sounds a lot like the US sending military advisors to South Vietnam. Heck, forget Vietnam; it sounds a lot like our previous excursions into Iraq.

We went to war with Iraq in 1990 to liberate Kuwait, and we did so. We kept Iraq under tight control for the next 11 years. We went to war with Iraq in 2003 over possibly skewed intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction. We deposed Sadam Hussein, helped the Iraqis form a democracy, helped to stabilize the country, and split. Now, a mere three years after we left, the religious groups in the country are at each others' throats again. Surprise surprise.

It's been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. 1990. 2003. 2014. Do you see a pattern? You might say each time is slightly different conditions, and that's true. But it's the same nation (that never should have been), the same people, the same religion(s), the same western country interjecting themselves into the affairs of that country. And we expect a different result? No, there won't be a different result. We will kick ISIS out. We will have to stabilize Iraq all over again with a multi-year military occupation combined with a huge humanitarian aid package. Then we'll leave and three years after we do the majority will again deal the minorities out of the government, oppress them economically, and they will again be engaged in a civil war. The very definition of insanity.

America, stay out of Iraq! Whatever our interests are there, or perceived interests, we cannot achieve them. Get out now. Stay out. No planes, no people, no aid. Stop the insanity.

So Much News

We babysat grandsons at our house, beginning last Saturday through yesterday. Ephraim is 6 and Ezra is 3. They seemed to have a good time. Grandpa and Grandma seemed to have a good time. On Tuesday Lynda had them pick up a lot of the toys they had out, which was a good thing. That made Wednesday morning easier to get ready to go. We drove to Tulsa; their mommy drove there from Oklahoma City, where we made the transfer at a Wendy's restaurant. Great-grandma made the drive with us. That capped off five enjoyable days. I took vacation days Monday and Wednesday, and had lots of fun with the boys.

Before bringing the boys to northwest Arkansas, Lynda had been a week in Oklahoma City to help the kids out with things. She had the three grandchildren alone for about 54 hours. So for her this was a ten day stretch with the kids. Last night, as soon as we were back at the house, she turned on the television to get some news. Later, just before bed, she said she needed a good night's sleep and then tackle her work hard tomorrow.

As the news reports came on, we were surprised at some of the things that had occurred. The Bergdahl story had been much in the news before the kids were here, so I knew something of it, but she hadn't got much of that in Oklahoma City. New information had come available in the days the kids were here, such as his journal or other writings, but we didn't turn on the news so didn't know about it. There were stories of Hillary Clinton, or the Veterans Administration scandal, of Eric Kantor being defeated in a primary (though we did get that news on Tuesday, it having preempted everything else during the brief time we had the television on), of children illegally streaming across our southern border, of the government doing nothing about any of it and stonewalling in providing information, and other news of seemingly equal importance.

Here we were, enjoying the grandkids, oblivious to a world that was raging with controversy. Ezra and I, at his bedtime, were blissfully playing roll-over blanket, then praying, unaware of all this important stuff going on. The radio played the easy listening music as background noise for him, giving us three minutes of headlines, including a 24 hour weather report, at the top of each hour. Clearly we were sinking into ignorance of world events.

My grandmother used to say, "Ignorance is bliss; it's folly to be wise," which I always thought was a tongue-in-cheek saying. During the days of grandkids we were tired at the end of the day. The evening after the grandkids were gone we were wiser, but also angrier because of what we knew.

I'm not saying I preferred the ignorance to being informed. Being hit with so much news at once was the problem, not the news itself. But I can sure see how a large amount of the US population and electorate knows next to nothing about our current events, the issues of the day, and whether their government is doing a good job or now. It's no wonder we continue to make a host of questionable choices with our elected officials.

The Next Generation

I was part of a recent "dust-up" at a political group on Facebook. These are all conservative people on the site. It's name is Conservative Arkansas. Yet, I posted something that bothered some people. I posted something about my theory that my own generation, the Baby Boomers, is in large measure depending on the government to fund their retirement through Social Security, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obama Care). I called us "The Candy Store Generation" after my book of that title.

Well, that got people really riled. I knew what I wrote was a little provocative, but I was unprepared for what some people posted. Here's what I first posted and what some others said in response.

Me: He's [a person referenced in an Internet news article] a baby boomer, a member of the Candy Store Generation. Most of them will expect to have their health care paid by O.P.M.—other people's money.

Another: David Todd...you have the market on a special kind of ignorance to make a remark as you did.

Another: David Todd is one kind of Special Ignorant Libtard Retard!

Another: David Todd, You must have grown up in neighborhoods of wealthy people.

Another: David Todd, you are sweeping with too wide a broom when you say most.

Another: VERY STRANGE RESEARCH. I've traveled the country managing 10,000 units of apartments from getto to upper end and never recall a conversation with a boomer that thinks the way you say. I suspect your reading liberal propaganda and/or talking direct with northerners who for the most part are twisted liberals

Another: David Todd does not know what he is even talking about!!!

Another: Pure puked up propaganda.

Another: It seems like Mr Todd has been bitten by the BarryBug. Fearsome little critter that has an obscene way of making one believe the most horrendous tales.

Another: Obama wasn't elected by Boomers. He was elected by bullshiting the young know-it-all Young people that live in the Give-Me Society-CHILDREN if the Boomers, combined with Low-Information Voters with challenged IQ's, voter fraud and the Black Vote that didn't care if he was the X-Dictator of Kenya that was here seeking political asylum. The Silent Majority Boomers is why we have a partial conservative House. They WILL rise to take the senate & presidency unless Obama can create a big enough civil war, declare Martial Law & cancel the election in the name of national defense.

Sorry for the profanity in that last one; I'm just quoting it as written. All of these are as written, including any typos. Only two of these are the complete posts. And some are repeated people. These aren't nine different people, but probably just four, maybe five.

Two or three instructive items can be drawn from this. The most important one is how every generation venerates previous generations, never sees a problem with their generation, and runs down the next younger generation. I believe it's been that way forever. No doubt the generation that fought the civil war blamed the long depression in the 1880s on the younger generation. Those who came of age during Reconstruction probably thought those coming of age during the Ragtime of the 1890s were a bunch of blooming idiots. They in turn would have misunderstood the era of good feeling leading up to WW1 and those who were euphoric about it.

Then, those who were adults before WW1 thought the "kids" of the Roaring 20s were profligates and reprobates. Eventually those who lived through the Great Depression and who fought and won WW2 thought the next generation were spoiled brats who were good for nothing. But wait, that would be...the Baby Boomers. Yes, the so-called Greatest Generation, who were our parents and grandparents, who raised and mentored us, saw us as a bunch of druggies, hippies, free-love freeloaders.

Now, on this conservative political site, those same people can't see that everyone in their generation isn't like they are, that a majority of Boomers have their hands in the candy store and are more than willing to use other people's money to fund their retirement. I used that understanding of the Boomers, bolstered by research and statistics, to make an analysis of the electorate as a whole and a prediction of the 2012 elections. And I got it exactly right on the presidency and the House, though was off some on the Senate. When I pointed that out in the thread, one man responded, "Yeah, we really should have seen the election coming, but didn't. As much as I rant and rave, I do still think people are, for the most part, smart enough to do things right. Obviously mistaken."

So, my analysis caused me to make an accurate prediction, while others predicted the election with their hearts instead of their heads. That makes me a libtard retard.

Obviously this isn't a site I should stick around. I don't see them as convincing 70 million people that there's a better way to run a country. They're preaching to themselves, driving away anyone who even slightly disagrees with them, and doing a very bad job of it overall. C'est la vie.