Bradley effect in 2016. Could it happen

In 1982 Tom Bradley, first and only African-American of Los Angeles, narrowly lost an election for governor of California despite polls showing him having an advantage. In 1989 African American L. Douglas Wilder was elected governor of Virginia by less than half a percent despite polls showing him with a 9 point lead. That same year David Dinkins was elected mayor of New York City by less than 3 percentage points just a number of days after polls showed him leading by 14-18 points. These are only a few examples of elections where an African American candidate’s results were a lot smaller than what the polls were predicting. Election Day has all sorts of surprises but some have suggested that these discrepancies happened because some white voters felt uncomfortable expressing support for the white candidate out of fear that they would be perceived as racially prejudiced and so they said they were undecided or planning to vote for the African American. Andrew Kohut who was president of Gallup organization during the New York City election suggested another theory that some white might not have been willing to give answers to these polls.

Kohut said "Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews. I’ve experienced this myself. In 1989, as a Gallup pollster, I overestimated the support for David Dinkins in his first race for New York City mayor against Rudolph Giuliani; Mr. Dinkins was elected, but with a two percentage point margin of victory, not the 15 I had predicted. I concluded, eventually, that I got it wrong not so much because respondents were lying to our interviewers but because poorer, less well-educated voters were less likely to agree to answer our questions. That was a decisive factor in my miscall."¹

Many think this pattern is mostly a thing of the past and I think it probably is. The examples I found were all from the 80’s and early 90’s. I don’t personally think that very many people felt uncomfortable about saying that they were planning to vote against President Obama in either of his presidential elections. This effect, often called the Bradley effect after the LA mayor, hasn’t been seen as much recently and it technically would not be applicable to this year’s presidential election, but I think the underlying principle might actually be more pronounced in this presidential election than it was in the other elections I mentioned. 

As far as I know the white opponents these candidates ran against didn’t have any particular reason to be called racist, they were just running against African Americans. But if it’s true that these African American candidates got an artificial lead in the polls because those surveyed were worried that showing support for the white candidate would make them appear racist, then how could there not be even more reluctance for someone to openly say that they plan to vote for trump. You don’t need me to tell you about all the controversial things he has said about Mexicans and Muslims but even if you disregard those he has made plenty of other comments that might make someone shy about admitting support for them for fear of being seen as uncivil. 

I don’t know the numbers on how his performance compared to his polls in the primaries but I think those votes came from people who were weren’t afraid to voice their support for him. Anyone feeling uneasy about voting for him before he got the nomination had at least two other options. Since securing the nomination, Trump has received the support of many politicians who were very critical of him. Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal are both on that list but if you didn’t know that it’s probably because their endorsements were a lot less enthusiastic than the endorsements from Scott Walker and Rick Perry. I think voters also vary in how enthusiastically they endorse Trump. I think a lot of voters have the mindset Paul Ryan had when he said he was “just not ready” to endorse Trump. But I think a lot of people are ready to vote for him. They’re just not ready to admit it.

1. Kohut, Andrew. "Getting It Wrong." Getting It Wrong - The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Jan. 2008. Web. 7 Oct. 2016.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, shows incredible ignorance

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/09/senate-democrats-to-unveil-bill-to-override-hobby-lobby-decision/

“One thing we're going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women's lives are not determined by virtue of five white men,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Tuesday. “This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, and we're going to do something about it. People are going to have to walk down here and vote, and if they vote with the five men on the Supreme Court, I think it's -- they're going to have -- be treated unfavorably come November with the elections.”

According to Harry Reid, the 5 Supreme Court justices whom ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby are white. According to my eyeballs, Clarence Thomas is African American.

That's all I need to say, for now.

My take on Bergdahl

Many people are asking if the trade of Bowe Bergdahl for 5 members of the Taliban was worth it. The polls I've seen say more say no than yes but it's not a majority. Here's what I think.

John McCain has referred to these guys are "the hardest of the hard-core." Each of these guys has there own wikipedia page and their descriptions show that they are pretty high ranking. If these guys were five henchmen who threw their hands up in the air when a black ops team invaded and took over the compound of their big bad boss it would be very questionable if the trade was worth it. But these are not henchmen, these guys are the big bad bosses.

To me this trade seems like a game of chess where you gain a pawn or bishop at the expense of your opponent getting 5 queens. It is worth it if your a move away from being able to use that piece for a checkmate. Maybe that's the case but public doesn't have a way of knowing so. I'm a big fan of 24 so I'm inclined to speculate that there's more to this trade than what meets the eye and that perhaps what the United States has really gained is much more than one Sergeant. From what I understand it's been said that he was a deserter and sort of went AWOL. I kind of wonder if he was doing some top secret mission. Who knows. But in my opinion, there is no way that trade was worth it based off of the information available on the surface.

Elections have consequences

Today I saw a program on MSNBC talking about Eric Cantor's loss in the primary election. It showed footage of a meeting only a few days after the inauguration in 2009 between President Obama, Eric Cantor, and others. The meeting was about passing and economic stimulus bill. In this meeting Congressmen Cantor made his pitch as party leaders do somewhere in this meeting President Obama says "elections have consequences," and he tells them that he won.

Depending on who you ask, someone might say that the President was unwilling to listen to modest proposals. Someone else might say that Eric Cantor was unwilling to accept the reality that Americans had just voted for the Democrats and their agenda and that even from Day 1, if President Obama was for something, than Eric Cantor and the republicans were against it. The later, I thought was the tone of the program I saw on MSNBC. But that's the point of my post.

Just a few minutes later I was riding my bike and thinking about the president's statement and I thought to myself, "He's totally a hypocrite for saying that."

The 2008 election was about many different issues but the outcome was pretty definitive. But I feel there was another election where the president didn't adhere to the spirit of the quote I mentioned. That was the Massachusetts senate special election where republican Scott Brown was elected to the Senate by a pretty comfortable margin. But in my view it seemed the president decided that this didn't matter and that he could ignore it and do what he wanted. In other words it seems to me that he thinks he can set the rules of what is kosher in politics and fold them so that they work only to his advantage. I said something similar in the bottom paragraph from a post I made earlier this year.

The rights of the Priesthood

Honor Code T Shirt

I consider BYU's honor code to be a great privilege. Being able to go to a school that upholds standards on sex drugs and alcohol makes my college experience much more enjoyable.

But during this year's honor code week I supposed to wear the honor code t shirt for a few of my shifts. I was willing to do this but the idea of keeping that shirt made me uncomfortable.

Another great privilege of attending BYU is it's tuition price. Few if any institutions offer such a great return on investment. I think compliance with the honor code, including wearing their t-shirt for a day, is a pretty small price to pay for what the school has to offer.

I think I can say that I enjoy BYU's honor code, but don't have quite the same feelings about an honor code week.

There are people who like to say things such as, "there are a ton of [unmarried] students at BYU having sex in the dorms," or "Provo has one of the highest rates of Rape in the country." I think these statements come from people whom are scared to come across as naive. The impression I get is that a large majority of the students here don't need an honor code to tell them not use alcohol or coffee, or that they can't have sex outside of marriage, or that they should go to church.

At a zone conference when an Elder or the mission president holds a white handbook and mouths the word "obedience" about 3 or 4 things come to mind. These are rules about being alone with opposite sex, when to wake up, when to study, when to leave, what websites not to use, etc. These aren't unimportant there's a lot more in the white handbook than just that. When you hear "honor code" there are at least two things that come to mind. 1) You can't have a beard. 2) You can't have people of the opposite sex in your apartment after given hours. I don't complain about these rules. But I worry that the spirit of honor code emphasis might give them too much weight.

When I was about 16 I had a lesson in Priests' quorum about habits. There was some fort of object lesson with some sort of tokens with words like "pornography," "alcohol," "swearing," "laziness," "procrastination." I said something like "if procrastination and pornography are in the same boat then I'm in trouble." I love BYU but sometimes feel like I'm being told that growing a beard is in that same boat as pornography.

My issue with wearing an honor code t-shirt is that I feel like I'm sending a message that if someone is a little irked that they have to shave, or that they can't have opposite gender friends hang out past midnight at their apartment, then they also must not appreciate being able to go to a school where the law of chastity and the word of wisdom are expected. I'm not suggesting that the honor code change, but I don't want to send the message I've described.

I'm generally a big fan of t-shirts. When I was young I collected Pokemon cards, when I was older I collected state orders, recently it's been t-shirts. Since the beginning of Fall Semester I think I've collected around half a dozen t-shirts. Some of them are about things I don't know or care about. So the fact that I didn't want to keep this shirt is pretty significant. The laundry room for my apartment complex has a bucket with a lid that says "clothing donations for the needy." That's what I did with it. 

Letter to Senator Lee, on stuff that will happen relating to health care

Dear Senator Lee

I just recently saw an article that the Treasury Secretary was recommending that Congress again raise the debt ceiling and that not doing so might harm the economy. The tendency for the past few years has been that when it's time to raise the debt ceiling or to pass a budget if often turns into a "showdown." Whether or not this happens there's a few issues that I want to be represented on.

One issue is Health Care reform. There's an interesting article about some problems with the affordable care act that don't seem to be getting that much attention. It is authored by Jon Kingsdale who was involved in the "RomneyCare" health insurance policy in Massachusetts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/beyond-healthcaregov-obamacares-other-challenges/2013/11/08/26cd7e3c-4702-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_print.html

A health insurance exchange is more than a Web site. It is an insurance store, and to manage it well requires insurance experience, technical know-how, and savvy marketing and sales tactics. The administration has a few months to put together a management team with these skills, dedicated exclusively to running the world’s largest store for private insurance. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have talented staff, and Jeffrey Zients, a former budget official who’s been called up to help fix the federal exchange’s online enrollment, may be just the guy to corral wayward technology vendors. But selling insurance is not what policy analysts and turnaround specialists do. I had 45 employees dedicated to operating the Massachusetts Health Connector; California has budgeted more than 300. Who’s minding the federal store?

If the administration fails to convince hundreds of insurers that the federal exchange will do a superb job marketing their products next fall, what then?

Premiums will jump, Democrats will blame “greedy” insurers, regulators will review rates and push for price controls. And Republicans can credibly crow: “We told you so.”

Below is from an article I read from CBSnews. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/6-key-obamacare-dates-to-watch-for-in-2014/ 

Nov. 15, 2014: Open enrollment for 2015 starts

The two-month Obamacare open enrollment period for 2015 begins 11 days after Election Day -- which some Republicans have called all too convenient. "If premiums go through the roof in the first year of Obamacare, no one will know about it until after the election," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in response to the timeline.

The administration said it decided to delay the open enrollment period by a month since 2014 enrollment got off to such a slow start. The delay should give insurers more time to evaluate the Obamacare marketplace and set 2015 premiums accordingly.

What I've tried to do is make a good case that The Affordable Care Act is likely going to hurt the economy because nobody or not enough people are running a store that according to an expert should need hundreds of people. Furthermore the bill is passed so that if it hurts the economy nobody will see it until after the election. How is that justified?

You were one of 18 republican senators who voted against the bill that ended the government shutdown and raised the debt ceiling. Not even a week later hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans made the news for receiving notifications that they were going to loose their health insurance due to the affordable care act. President Obama said over and over again that someone who liked their health plan would not loose it on account of the ACA. People made a big deal about how his words turned out to be inaccurate but nobody vindicated the TEA party. Nobody said, "why didn't we listen to them."Nobody said, "I thought they didn't deserve to be taken seriously but it looks like they were right all along." And this is because no politician had the standing to say "see, this is what we said three weeks ago when the shutdown started." My belief is that the Republican party and especially the TEA Party might have the right ideas but what they don't have is their act together. Instead of a clear logical simple explanation for how and why the budget and the health care system needed to be changed, the only things anybody remembers hearing from the TEA party is Senator Cruz's reading of Dr. Seuss.



So far I have tried to represent 3 legitimate reasons to want to reform Health Care.

1. State health insurance exchanges have dozens if not hundreds of people managing them whereas the nation-wide exchange doesn't seem to have any.
2. The timetable of the bill is crafted so that if premiums go up (which according to Kingsdale will definitely happen) nobody will know until after the election which may be an unfair advantage to the democrats.
3. Despite the president's promise, many are being told that they cannot keep the health coverage that they like.

During the recent state of the union address the President said something like "let's not take another 40 something votes to repeal a law that is already helping millions of Americans." You were one of the senators the president was speaking to. I myself am a little sick of hearing the words "Obamacare" and "repeal" in the same sentence. But I do believe that there is an opportunity to reform the health system so as to address some of these concerns.

So if there's going to be another game of chicken over the debt ceiling here's the view I want to be represented.

"We have zero people managing the health insurance exchange when we need hundreds. And the bill is crafted so that premiums could go up but nobody will know until after the election which is an unfair advantage to the democrats."

The reason I want it said like this is that if it is then it would be hard to not agree with. Whereas if people only hear the old message about how Obamacare is going to kill jobs, hurt the deficit, etc. then people will say "good grief, we've heard enough from these TEA Party guys who are not willing to compromise, let's vote them out this fall."