The Russian Bear isn't so tough

In the past few weeks, a great many writers have said that the Russian star is on the rise. An American election crowned the openly pro-Russian Donald Trump, who has said he would like to collaborate with Russian interests in the Middle East and elsewhere. Other Eastern European nations have elected pro-Russian leaders, and the fate of the two rival organizations, the European Union and even NATO, may have their futures jeopardized.

But one key thing about Russia is often overlooked. It has weaknesses, ones that are not only structural and nearly crippling to the nation, but ones that Russians continue to ignore.

To understand the Russian Federation one needs to know how it became the way it is. Russia was once the core of the Soviet Union, the nation binding that empire together. Once the Soviets tried instituting reforms to match the economic successes of its ideological rivals, unintentionally dissolving the Union in the process, the Russian Federation was formed.

The Russian ruling class then had a choice when facing its new, post-communism fate. Should it try and join the capitalist community gradually, like China had? Or should it dismantle the government control of industry entirely, and jump headlong into this future, much like the Japanese in post-WWII?

The Russians chose the latter to great detriment. When most government organizations were dismantled, much of their workforce was left out of a job and income. The newly privatized corporations did not make up this loss in employment, and most economic gains were made by the very wealthiest of Russian society, now commonly referred to as the "oligarchs."

This led to the rise of Vladimir Putin. The past reforms had been made by President Boris Yeltsin (of both the Soviet Union and Russian Federation), who had become increasingly unpopular. When he decided to resign, his Prime Minister and ex-KGB Lieutenant Colonel Putin was made acting President.

Putin took advantage of his new power to make a deal with the oligarchs. The ones who supported his government were given special privileges with the state in exchange for their cooperation. The ones who resisted Putin were arrested or forced into exile. In the process, since Putin's inauguration corruption in the country has skyrocketed. On the corruption perceptions index Russia is ranked 120 out of 168 nations, more corrupt than China, Mexico, Colombia, and Vietnam.

But Putin did improve the economy. By taking advantage of Russia's newly discovered natural gas reservoirs and by rebuilding the government's state bureaucracy, the economy improved. And Russia remained powerful militarily, having inherited most of the Soviet Union's armed forces. By building a mostly state-run news medium, Russian support for Putin and the Kremlin remains incredibly high.

Now, here is where Russian weaknesses kick in. The past few years have been especially hard on Russian interests, both politically and economically.]

First was Ukraine. A nation that was also integral to the Soviet Union and has many historical ties to Russia diverted from its cousin. In 2014, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich diverted from his promise to pursue ties with the EU to instead work with Russia. The people revolted in the western and central areas of the country, booting Yanukovich from the presidency.

Putin soon responded. It is important to remember why the following happened; Ukraine was (and in Russian minds still is) part of Russia's sphere of influence, and any move away from Russia would inherently weaken it. Not only that, Ukraine was one of the few post-Soviet nations to remain close to Russia, as Poland, the Baltics, Hungary and Romania all turned away from the Federation.

Russian special troops soon entered and seized control of the Crimean peninsula, and rebels began popping up in Eastern Ukraine with Russian support. There is now an uncertain peace, but compared to the firmly pro-Russian Ukraine of the past, Russia now only has pockets of support in the country.

Next is Syria. Since 1956, Syria had received military support from the Soviet Union. It still remains one of the few allies Russia has in the Middle East, an area that is mostly affiliated with the United States, Europe, or has its own agendas.

When Syria began to be embroiled in its own civil war (mostly due to the mismanagement of its dictator), Russia again responded. Any attempt by the US or Europe to intervene through the United Nations was blocked by Russian veto power, and the Kremlin continued to support the Syrian government militarily despite its many humanitarian crimes.

Again, this has not proven very beneficial to Russia. Compared to the stable, reliable military ally of the past, Syria has become a mess. Only some government holdouts remain, while most of the country is controlled by rebels of various kinds, some US supported and others affiliated with ISIS.

Both of these foreign entanglements have been detrimental to Russia's perception abroad. Entanglements in Ukraine have made much of Eastern Europe much more keen on allowing NATO to build up forces to protect them, and has made the military alliance mostly a check against Russian power. NATO, which had been thought irrelevant after the Soviet Union's demise, once again has a purpose. Middle Eastern nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia have also moved farther from Russian advances, and stepped up their own military spending. And Europe has moved to sanction Russia as punishment for its meddling.

And lastly comes the final Russian weakness; the economy. Although Putin managed to patch up the worst effects of the Soviet Union's dissolution, thing have again worsened. The sanctions hurt the Russian economy, but far worse was the drop in oil prices (due to Saudi Arabian tinkering) which plunged Russia into a recession in 2014 (and is only now tapering off).

This is what reveals the biggest problem Russia has. Its economy is over-reliant on one industry, energy. This is economically very risky. The more diversified a nation is economically, the more likely it can ride out market shocks and jolts. Russia is only successful when energy prices are high. But its long-term future is even worse. Compared to European and North American nations, Russians are not as well-educated and prepared for emerging industries in computing and information. Russia also has a very low-rate for immigration. Immigration is necessary considering the country has a low-birthrate, meaning its workforce will continue to fall and the country will become more unproductive in the future.

And (as mentioned before) much of the economic success of Russia is siphoned off due to corruption. It is estimated that in the 2014 Olympics, a road built to connect Sochi to other Russian cities cost $6.8 billion (for comparison, the entirety of the Canadian Olympics in 2010 cost $1.5 billion). Analysts pointed out that normally road construction is not so astronomical in cost, and that for $6.8 billion another country could have paved such a road with caviar or Louis Vuitton bags. The only rational answer is that the companies hired by the Kremlin to build the road were given some hefty bribes.

Normally these problems alone do not spell disaster. Countries all over the world have these same issues. What is really relevant is that the Kremlin doesn't seem to notice the country's trajectory. Instead, Putin feels more and more pressured to continue to interfere in foreign entanglements that are getting diminishing returns, when the situation at home is spiraling into worsening straits.

The reason it hasn't gotten personally bad for Putin and his oligarchs is that the propaganda machine that is Russian news has been able to spin the economy problems as a Western plot to destroy Russia. Although this is partly true (the sanctions are designed to hurt Russia) most of the problems Russia faces are natural movements of nations turning away from it on their own volition, or are the unstable economic climate collapsing on itself.

Russia continues to see itself as a global power on the rise, when instead it is descending into deeper stagnation. To save it, there needs to be a radical shifting of resources away from military spending to leverage energy revenues into building better education and infrastructure, to spur investment and build a diversified economy that can succeed in the future. Sadly, under current leadership, this will certainly not happen, and it is only a question of when, not if, the Russian people turn on those who have wronged them.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a27243/russia-olympics-caviar-road/

Globalism is Down in the 8th Inning

In political science, the past year has been nothing short of revolutionary. The conventional wisdom of political scientists everywhere was that globalism is not only pushing the world into further integration, but that the effects are accelerating.

What no one seemed to notice is that there are some people who aren't happy about globalism. And these people not only vote, they can win.

It started off in a few smaller countries where no one really noticed. In 2015, Poland voted for the "Law and Justice Party," giving the country a majority government for the first time since 1989. As you can guess by the name, the Party is tough on crime and wants to boost the power of the state by increasing the executive's power. They are also skeptical of the EU, want to limit immigration, openly disdain gay rights, and want to boost military spending.

Austria had the next election in April 2016. For the presidency, four parties ran for election, two of whom we established in politics, the other two being far-right and far-left. The two anti-establishment parties won the most votes, and qualified for the run off. This was the first time since WWII that a candidate from the established parties had not qualified for the run-off. The two remaining, was the nationalist Freedom Party of Austria, and the leftist Green Alternative. The run-off awarded the Green Alternative the narrowest of victories, which the Freedom Party succeeded in contesting. Austria will need to vote again for either of these two candidates in December.

The news did acknowledge how odd that election was, as the Freedom Party has openly mentioned the possibility of pulling out of the European Union. At the same time, the far-right part didn't really win, and it is Austria, a country that exists mostly on the periphery of importance.

The Philippines then elected Rodrigo Duterte in May, an increasingly erratic president who has threatened to pull out of the United Nations and abandon an alliance with the United States. It is believed that 3,000 people have been killed in his way on drugs since the election, all of which were without trial. Duterte has even called President Obama a "son of a whore," and has pledged to realign his country's interest with repressive China.

Then came the next bombshell; Brexit. The United Kingdom voted 52% to leave the European Union, an outcome not predicted by the polls and only supported by the most obscure of British politicians. The PM David Cameron resigned, and was a clear blow to the European project.

In November, Bulgaria elected openly pro-Russian candidate Rumen Radev, supported by the Socialist Party. And then Estonia elected Juri Ratas, another pro-Russian candidate as Prime Minister.

And the final nail in the coffin, is the election of Donald Trump as President of the most powerful nation on Earth. He is perhaps the most anti-establishment, anti-trade, anti-globalist person elected to that office since Andrew Jackson.

So... what does this all mean?

It is a pattern, showing a consistent rejection of traditional politics and politicians. It isn't defined by a particular ideology or policy, with Trump technically being conservative while others are more socialist. What is common is a clear rejection of the traditional party elites, a rejection of free trade and of immigration. There is increased tribalism and nationalism emerging, with parties like "Golden Dawn" in Greece and "the National Front" in France gaining popularity.

These result may have been inevitable. The events in the Middle East have led to a mass exodus of refugees and migrants, the most seen since WWII. There would of course be a negative reaction from Europeans nations that have mostly white populations. The UK is 87% white, France is 85%, and Germany 80%. Having to adjust to new, different people very quickly will always create negative reactions.

Add to the economic stagnation in most countries, and that there is a perception that crime and terrorism is on the rise (it actually isn't) and you have a common mindset globally. People different from us are moving in to take our jobs, and my culture is disappearing, and our jobs are disappearing to other countries, and our jobs aren't as good as they used to be, and the world is getting more dangerous and our leaders don't care about us and don't want to fix any of this.

No wonder people are choosing the most radical candidates, parties and directions.

This isn't new either. When the going gets tough, people vote tougher. Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Vladimir Putin were all chosen by the people (yep, Napoleon won elections) and were all immensely popular. They didn't emerge out of vacuums, but instead out of chaos and economic calamity. Telling people what they want to hear and promising to fix it will sadly succeed more than the gritty compromise building and maneuvering of democracy.

And the newest radical leaders have again another thing in common; stripping out democracy. For in order to pursue the people's will, they need to tear down the institutions that may keep their power in check.

The events haven't stopped either. Next year France has its presidential election, between the incumbent Socialists, the challenging establishment Republicans, and the anti-globalism National Front. With the Socialist favorability dismal, the next president is likely Republican. But Marine le Pen and the National Front is within striking distance, and them winning could spell the doom of the European Union, an institution that has maintained collective unity on the continent. Its end would make the future a lot more uncertain.

I don't think we are heading for a WWII type nightmare, as we leave in a very different world than 1940. But the parallels exist and are striking. Sadly, radical leaders of the past never met their voters promises for long, and often made more problems rather than less. Maybe this will be different, or the pattern will stop. What happens over the next year could indeed bring even more changes.

What Does This Mean?

Ok, it is November 9th. And the number one question people have asked me is; "What does this mean?"

Let me be frank here. I was wrong. I didn't think he would win (though I knew he could). In my defense, no one really thought he could win, because all of the data was wrong.

Last night, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.

Electorally, it was an important win. It showed that with today's demographics, Republicans can win the Presidency. But that has its limits too, as it looks increasingly likely that Trump will lose the popular vote after it is all tallied, meaning they have only won more votes once in the past seven elections. And there was more than one state where the amount of third-party voters could have changed the state's outcome.

But there are very real consequences. The Republican Party controls all our branches of government, with the Presidency, majorities in Congress, and will soon have a majority in the Supreme Court. The last time this happened was FDR in World War II. Essentially, if Republicans agree, they can do whatever they want.

That's the key though. "If Republicans agree." That is the biggest decider of what the future holds, if the party can actually hold together when their are such clear differences of opinion. Let's take a look at some key Trump promises;

1. The Wall
Can this actually happen? Sort of. Logistically building Trump's wall is going to be a challenge (the U.S-Mexican border goes through towns, mountains and rivers) but can technically happen in many areas. And this is something that most Republicans can agree on; tougher border security. So... this could happen.

2. The Muslim Ban
This is less likely. There were some big objections in the Republican party to this proposal, and although it could technically by done by Executive Order, this probably won't happen. What is more likely, is a complete shutdown on any refugees from the Middle East, something Republicans are fairly united on.

3. Taxes
Although Trump occasionally drifted into saying he wanted higher taxes on the rich, the Republican platform he ran on doesn't say that. In fact, these are bigger tax cuts than Reagan's. And these are likely to pass. The Republican party has long ran on saying that the only way to grow the economy is to cut regulations and taxes. This is true, but America also has some of the lowest income taxes in the world, and most experts agree the economy would need to grow by 6% to balance the budget. It is highly unlikely that the economy will triple in production because of tax cuts alone.

4. Climate Change
Republicans have long agreed that even if climate change is real, that it isn't worth the regulations. So we may see Trump himself pull out of the Paris agreement, and if he doesn't lawmakers will simply ignore it.

5. Gay Marriage and Abortion
OK the Republicans aren't going to ban gay marriage and abortions, as they have long said it is a State's issue. At the same time, they get to regain their majority on the Supreme Court. But they had a majority one year ago, and gay marriage and abortion are still legally allowed (there is a swing Republican judge who maintains both are legal). So this is unlikely to change... unless the oldest judge, Ruth Ginsberg, retires, meaning the Republicans could expand their majority further.

6. Trade
Republicans are really torn on trade. It is unlikely that the Party is going to risk starting tariff wars with other countries by ripping up trade deals and taxing imports, even if this is a centerpiece of Trump's campaign. But the Trans-Pacific-Partnership is not happening, at least for America. If Trump wants to nix it he can... although other countries can easily approve it without America's membership.

7. Obamacare
There is actually some disagreement here. Although every Republican agrees Obamacare = Bad, there is disagreement over whether it should be replaced. Some maintain it shouldn't be replaced at all, just kill it. But most Republicans don't want to alienate the voters who benefit from it, and want something to keep key aspects of the law, such as stopping discrimination of pre-existing conditions. What they actually do will be interesting, as it will be difficult to get everyone to agree on a replacement.

8. The Welfare State
It's getting slashed, and Republicans will be happy about it. It is in the platform and is necessary to balance the budget, even though the tax cuts are so extreme I'm guessing the deficit will likely expand.

9. War on Terror
Ironically, little is likely to change here. Although police and the FBI are likely to get more funding and ignore civil liberties, this probably won't change lone wolf attacks very much. And the war against ISIS will probably get more funding, but is unlikely to speed up the victory if there are no American troops. Since Trump doesn't want troops in Iraq, and it would be very unpopular, this is about the same.

10. Syrian Crisis
An odd silver lining here. Although Republicans won't like it, Trump doesn't need to consult them here. He has long said he would like to work with both Putin and Assad to fight ISIS, meaning that there will be more coordination between various factions in the area. It also means Assad (who has killed millions of Syrians) will maintain power.

11. Infrastructure
Another silver lining! Republicans and Democrats have long talked about teaming up to tackle America's crumbling infrastructure. Now, Republicans can fix it however they choose, by either increased funding or even privatization.

12. Jobs
The government can't make jobs unless they actually hire people, and Republicans want to shrink government not grow it. Even if there are tariffs and trade agreements are removed, most manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, and if they do, they will be engineering jobs managing machines. Most of the unhappy, jobless working class are likely to stay that way.

13. Deporting all the Illegals
There are literally millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. Although Trump is in his legal rights to enforce the law, this is a logistical nightmare. Some families could literally be torn apart, with illegal parents and American-born children. He can try and do it, but it will be very, very messy, and will not look good.

So... if your a Democrat, what do you learn from this? Well there is little for you to be happy about. At the same time, Trump is falling short of most of his promises. Historically, sitting President's lose Congress seats rapidly in midterm elections, though the gerrymandering of Congress may ensure it stays safe for some time. But I might be more worried as a Republican. It is hard to imagine Trump winning reelection if he fails to meet expectations, and that is a steep promise. And what is your party going to become? Can it remain the Party of Reagan, or is it now the Party of Trump?

I don't know. But for once, progressives get to retake the easier job of railing against the government and explaining why it is doing it all wrong. I'm going to love Fox News explain the screw-ups that are incoming.

Is 2016 Going to be a Landslide, or an Upset?

So in the aftermath of the second Presidential debate and the newest scandals for both candidates, it seems like an appropriate time to evaluate how Trump and Clinton are doing in their race to the White House.

And Clinton appears to be winning big. Aggregate polling has her up in every swing state, and has even moved Arizona into contested territory. The last time Arizona went for a Democrat was 1996.

It has become so one-sided in polling that Democrats are now wondering if its possible they can win not just the Senate but also the House. The last time Democrats had Congress and the Presidency was 2008 in Obama's landslide victory, and ever since they lost the House in 2010 there has been lasting gridlock in Washington.

And perhaps they are right to be excited. Clinton is currently up by an average of 7 points nationwide, similar to Obama's 2008 victory. So it stands to reason the House can be won back. But let's stand back and wonder; is the polling even accurate? In recent elections polling has been wrong by 2 points or more, which can move Clinton from an easy victory to a close race. Let's look at possible polling errors.

1. Landlines are Dead.
Pollsters still rely heavily on calling up landlines for polling responses. They can't easily call cell-phones and get their information, so polling has remained fairly similar to how it was done eight years ago. But obviously key voters are less likely to have landlines, like young people or the poor. In retrospect, older voters are more likely to have landlines than everyone else. Pollsters do know about this and try to "weigh" responses based on demographics to shift responses to reflect the country, but it is still guesswork.

The funny thing is, when polls are wrong because of landlines it tends to help left-wing politicians. Although Clinton has less support from millennials than Obama because they are splitting up for third-parties, they aren't flocking to Trump. So if polling is wrong because of low responses to polling, Clinton could plausibly expand her lead to 9 points. This would be a big win that would easily win the Presidency and Senate, and likely capture the House.

2. Voters are Lying.
Sometimes people are so ashamed of the candidate they are supporting they can't face to admit it to the pollster, either claiming their undecided or pick the other team. This may sound made up, but it is real; both the Conservatives in the United Kingdom and Netanyahu in Israel were re-elected despite polling predicting their losses. Voters were afraid to admit they were more comfortable with the incumbent than the challengers, and pollsters couldn't catch the truth.

This probably helps Trump more than Clinton (he is polling as more unpopular) but Clinton too is immensely unlikable. Not to mention the people saying they like 3rd parties are more likely to pick realistic candidates when the enter the voting booth. This could move Trump to losing by 5 points (still big) but is more likely to come out as a wash, considering other voters could move in the opposite direction.

3. Split-Voting.
This is the weirdest one with less precedent, mostly because it can really only happen in the United States. In most parliamentary democracies, in federal elections you only vote for one person, your local representative. In the United States, you vote for the President, Senator, and Representative. And you don't have to pick the same party for each one, but instead could split you vote among several parties.

There isn't much evidence of this happening in even U.S. elections (most people simply vote the same party down the line), but this election is weird. Perhaps a voter isn't comfortable with Trump, but is a lifelong Republican who wants a Republican congress?

It is hard to say who this benefits. It doesn't really affect the Presidency, and assumes that polling is accurate. It just assumes the winners for seats in the Senate and House don't reflect that winner. So Republicans could gain from moderates who vote Clinton but split. But third-parties rarely even have candidates for the House or Senate, and those voters lean younger and more liberal, and therefore more likely to pick down-ballot Democrats. And the 3rd party vote sits around 10% right now, much larger than normal.

To conclude, Clinton will almost certainly be President unless there is a polling error of unseen magnitude. But it doesn't necessarily mean her victory will be a home-run, or even a blow-out. In the end, all we can really do is wait for election day and see what happens.

NOTE: I encourage everyone to vote, despite what the polling says. Even if you don't care for either candidate, the Senate and House will likely have a greater impact on your life than the Presidency ever will. And if your governor or local elections fall on the same day it is even more important, as the more local your politicians the more likely their decisions will affect you.

I've heard the argument that not voting is making a statement, that neither party is meeting your needs. In my opinion, such a statement will never be heard, as someone will nonetheless get elected and make decisions that affect your life. And no one likes people that both complain about their government, while at the same time doing nothing to stop it.

Demographic Winners/Losers of the Presidential Debate

Whatever your political leanings, you probably watched last Monday's Presidential debate. It is estimated that 84 million people tuned in, not including streaming from YouTube or Facebook. It was the biggest viewership for a US debate ever.

Now the media consensus has (mostly) agreed that Clinton won the debate. Although some polls go either way, the more reliable non-partisan ones agree with that assessment.

But if we break down the viewership by demographics, it isn't nearly a simple "Clinton one, Trump loss." And demographics is probably the best way to break down the electorate this year, especially when the traditional party lines have become so blurred by Trump's realignment of the Republican party.

So let's break it down.

Blue-Collar White Men:
This is white men with a high-school diploma, but likely never went to college. This includes manufacturing and other jobs that don't require education, but doesn't necessarily mean they are poor. Plumbers and firefighters are considered middle class and require more training but still fall under this category, and therefore this is the biggest segment of the white population (and probably the electorate in general). Very few are considered wealthy.

This is Trump's core support, and the reason he never falls under 30% in polling. Everything he says about trade and the economy is very resonant here, and many of his statements on social issues and foreign policy as well. He represents the "straight talker" and "identifies with us," as Trump rarely gives policy specifics and doesn't need to, as this group doesn't really want or understand policy specifics. That doesn't make blue-collar workers stupid (they aren't) but if your working hard and don't have a broad education, it is a lot more difficult to become informed on economic or geopolitical policy.

Trump probably lost negligible support because of his debate performance here, or maybe even gained support. His first half on economics resonates very well, and he didn't really say anything that a large portion of this group would disagree with. Clinton said nothing that truly connects to this group.

White-Collar White Men:
This group is similar to the last one, except most are college-educated and stick to office jobs. Accountants, stock brokers, engineers, doctors, IT, anything that requires the use of the brain over the hands. This group has historically been split between the parties. Older white-collar workers and retirees tend to be Republican, younger one's Democratic.

This group probably wasn't that affected by the debate either. Most of this group had likely already made up their mind over political preferences, and although Clinton's performance probably shifted some in her favor it would not have been significant. I simply don't think enough of this group were going into the debate on the fence.

African-American, Muslims and Latinos:
Obviously I could divide this group into further divisions, and race isn't necessarily the defining issue for all voters in this group, but I'm doing my best to keep it simple and as least complicated as possible.

This group was broadly supporting Clinton before the debate, with the consistent impressions that Trump drifts into racism. Deporting all illegal immigrants, banning all Muslims, and waffling on the KKK was not winning many of these voters. But Trump did have an opportunity to peel off some of these voters, and he blew it.

When asked "How would you heal the racial divide?" Trump said he would bring back jobs and bring back law and order. But what was key was that he said "stop and frisk" was very effective in bringing down crime. There are arguments for and against this, but it is obviously very unpopular with blacks, Latinos and Muslims. Although a white person may think it is effective, they haven't experienced being pulled over or frisked for simply being another race. Anything Trump said about the economy was completely negated by expressing support for this policy.

Millenials:
This is broadly speaking young people. It overlaps with other groups, but includes others like college students, interns, and those recently employed. It obviously leans more Democratic (especially in the swing states) and was the base of Bernie Sanders support. Many of whom loathe Clinton because of her primary battle, and see her indistinguishable to Trump. Millenials are the most likely to drift into third-parties or threaten not-voting.

This group Clinton did very well in with the debate. Facebook and Twitter was constantly posting messages about Trump's strangest statements, many simply mocking his constant sniffing. The comedy over the next two days made fun of him and praised Clinton. Although she didn't really do anything to win them over, she clearly won out as a better alternative and realistic choice for president.

White Women:
This group is absolutely key, and in polling comes out as the most undecided between candidates. This can be split further between stay-at-home mothers and wives, employed with a family or without, single mothers and more. It is a group that varies in political allegiance and knowledge, but consistently values character more than experience and policy. Between the candidates Trump and Clinton, both of dubious character, this makes white women the most likely to swing the election.

And Clinton won on the debate on character. When she was attacked she deftly turned aside character assassination through patient smiling or with her emails simply apologized (a sign of weakness among men, a strength among women). Trump waffled through confrontations on lying about Iraq, about racism and on "temperament." In comparison, Clinton appeared in control, even if it was rehearsed and a little cringe-worthy.

Conclusion:
Clinton was the overall winner. Trump may have gained a few more white male votes, but this was certainly offset by the shifts in millennials and women for Clinton. I would guess a shift of about 2 points (based on historical debate shifts) in favor of Clinton, but it well could be more.

That said, I still hold that polling is wrong in favor of the Democrats. Younger people and some minorities tend to lack a landline phone, and are thus underrepresented in polls. And the high voter registration among Latinos in this election, and the superior ad and ground staff of the Clinton campaign adds to that bump. Considering Obama beat Romney and the poll estimates by 2 points, I suspect a similar 2 point advantage exists unmeasured.

Still, the election is far from set. Although Trump consistently falls short of majority approval, he often gets close. And third-parties affects cannot be disputed (Ralph Nader, 2000), with third-parties trying to capitalize on the unpopularity of both candidates. We don't know until people actually vote.

Can Donald Trump Actually Be President?

I live in Canada, and many Canadians feel especially glum about the election down south. Although few of us are enthusiastic supporters of Clinton, polling shows we definitely prefer her over the alternative.

But a lot of Canadians think a Trump presidency is possible, and even likely. After all, when every news pundit said it was impossible and instead he got the nomination just as easily as Romney did in 2012, it is hard to say he can't become President too.

Looking at polling right now paints a different story. Trump is down in every swing state, and usually by a lot. His Midwest strategy looks to be completely failing, with Clinton way up in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. He's down in every demographic except white men without college degrees. So is it possible he could overcome all of this and become President of the United States?

The answer is yes, yes he can. But it's not likely, and even less so than after my last post on the subject.

The traditional way Trump can win is simple; the polling bump from the Democratic National Convention ends, and begins to fall. Clinton still leads, but not by as much. Then the debates happen, and Trump decisively beats her in them. He overtakes her, wins election.

The non-traditional way is in the realm of speculation; Clinton gets murdered (which Trump has recently suggested supporters should do) and Democrats can't mount a challenger. Or maybe the economy goes done the tubs, or there's a housing crash, or a devastating terror attack. Maybe Obama reveals a scandal. Maybe Julian Assange of Wikileaks reveals Clinton's missing emails. Anything big, noticeable, and unexpected can tip the scales.

 But obviously, speculation works both ways. Someone could murder Trump, he can be hit with scandals, maybe Assange reveals his tax returns. And they aren't a very good metric to predict on, because their so... unpredictable.

So let's work out how likely the "traditional" victory can happen. It starts with Trump reversing his poll deficit. This isn't happening nearly fast enough for him. This is probably because after the DNC, Trump began to attack the family of a fallen veteran, and began to openly claim the election is already rigged.

Trump just can't stop himself from saying something that annoys most people. Sure, his base doesn't care (or likes it) but Romney and McCain both held the Republican base and lost decisively to Obama. Republican candidates need to tack to the middle, and saying outrageous things doesn't help.

The problem Trump has is that to reverse this, he can't just shut up. Then Clinton hold her edge right up to the debates. Why? Well, for instance Trump gave a big speech this week on his economic plan. It was meant to convince swing voters he had a grasp of economics and had plans to improve their prospects. Few people watched it (I didn't).

People don't care about policy speeches. Their boring. And we are currently in a bit of a lull for the election, because the Olympics are on! So most people are turning away from CNN and FOX to NBC to watch the US of A rack up medals.

So Trump's not doing well to close that poll difference, and doesn't have much chances to do so until the debates. But as we've seen, Mr. Trump isn't very good at debates. The moderators challenge him on facts, and sometimes openly attack him. Clinton gets challenged too, but she is a lot better at deflecting. And Sanders' best attacks on her were on her character, which Trump lacks the legitimacy to do (his character sucks too).

And then after the debates... whoa, its election day. Wait, there are only 90 or so days from now to the election?

So Trump's got little time and few chances to change the game. Thankfully, he doesn't seem to care. His campaign has yet to pay for a general election ad, while Clinton has spent $52 million. He doesn't court any of the demographics he needs, like women or college-educated voters (other than by saying, "Don't worry, women love me.") The election is already rigged, he says.

And why would he want to be President? Although Trump enjoys campaigning (the entire country gets to talk about him, he clearly loves that), being President is a tough job. You need to compromise, and understand the issues, go around the world to negotiate with other leaders. And perhaps most importantly to Trump, the honeymoon period doesn't last long and the electorate almost always turns on the President.

So let Trump be Trump, and this whole thing will be over soon.

Libya was Destined to be a Mess

When people criticize Hillary Clinton, many point to her judgment, especially on foreign policy. She voted for the Iraq War, she wanted a reset with Russia, and most notoriously, she wanted to intervene in Libya.

On the first two, remember that Obama voted for Iraq, and that Donald Trump is recorded supporting it as well (in the beginning). And the Russian reset was with President Medvedev, who was quickly scrapped in Russian policy for weakness. It is President Putin you can blame for that going south.

But Libya is the one that most people like to point to. One, apparently Obama was pushed into it by Hillary's suggestions. And two, Libya did eventually lead to the even more famous Benghazi attack.

So why did Clinton want intervention in Libya? Looking back, most people can clearly see it was a mistake. The government currently controls only the capital, and the rest is held by roving tribes, many affiliated with ISIS.

And you could question Clinton's judgment, pointing out how Iraq was a case of intervention fixing nothing. Clinton looks like she learned nothing from that war, blindly stumbling into a new conflict because "Hoo-ra, the U.S. army rocks!"

None of these criticisms actually point out why the intervention was suggested in the first place.

So I will set the scene; it is 2011, and the Arab Spring is unfolding. In most of these countries these protests would fail or turn into very different movements. Egypt removed its President, elected an Islamist, and removed him in a coup. Syrian protesters were fired upon, and the protesters became rebel fighters. Only Tunisia truly succeeded, becoming a parliamentary republic.

In Libya, the protesters aimed to remove their President, Muammar Qaddafi. He had a reputation for being a hotheaded dictator, and once considered funding a nuclear weapons program. So when the protests started, he declared them "drugged" linked to Al-Qaida, and that he would rather be a martyr than leave the country. The army fired on protesters, and soon half of the country fell to the rebels. Qaddafi had the army march out to retake these areas, and pictures of tanks in the desert reached Western news.

Now think about the consequences to the West. Similar developments were happening in Syria, though not as quickly. But unlike Syria, Libya was a pressing and immediate issue. Libya is only a short boat ride from Italy. That country and France (which has imperialist ties to Libya) openly advocated a no-fly zone and intervention. Civil war so close to Europe was seen as simply unthinkable.

So the no-fly zone was set up, and a coalition of Western powers (led by Italy and France, with the USA as a simple contributor) launched airstrikes on military targets. The rebels took Tripoli, found Qaddafi himself in a drainpipe, and beat him to death.

A parliament was set up in Tripoli, which failed to exert control outside of the city, leading to the chaos in the country today.

Now imagine that there wasn't an intervention. It was widely believed Qaddafi was going to defeat the rebels, with his superior army and tanks. But as we've learned in Syria, the dictator with the army doesn't always win (Assad hasn't lost either, but five years of civil war are definitely not a win). If Qaddafi had triumphed, and done so quickly, maybe the intervention could be considered pointless.

But let's say Qaddafi didn't immediately win. Let's say he ran into the same problems as Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, with the rebels hanging on to key cities, with major components of the army defecting, and no end in sight. Neither side is willing to back down, and the country spirals into every worsening civil war.

Syria has led to a mass refugee exodus, triggering crisis in Europe. It has become a haven for terrorist groups, and ISIS controls part of the country. Libya is far closer to Europe. Any terrorists and refugees would find exporting their problems to Italy and Europe much easier than Syrians did.

Now maybe if the Italians and French had been interested in creating a stable Libya rather than just toppling Qaddafi, they would have recognized that military action alone would not create lasting peace. But they didn't, and the US didn't push them to, so the current situation exists.

Nobody remembers how Libya actually started down this path to chaos, and nobody says how much worse it could have gone. But then, that wouldn't make a very good talking point, would it?

The Irony of American Leadership

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there has been no question that the United States of America is the world's one and only superpower. Though other nations challenge the USA in specific theaters of the world, like Russia in Europe, China in Asia, or Iran in the Middle East, none has a global presence quite like America does.

The U.S. has naval ships in every ocean. It has allies on every continent. It spends the most money on its military than any nation, and its more than the next ten countries combined. No country has had such a dominant global presence since the British Empire, and the United States is perhaps even stronger.

None of this means America is invincible. Wars in the Middle East have shown that even with the backing of strong allies, nation-building is hard. Rivals continue to chip away at American authority whenever they can (even if the attempts are shortsighted). And even the US's allies are unwilling to march lockstep with American goals.

Nonetheless, the current age is probably the most peaceful the world has ever seen. Unlike in the past, wars between nations are rare and far between. This is likely because the world is now filled with democracies, and voters are usually against wars (or tire of it soon). Even when terrorism is on the rise, there is no Cold War between two nuclear armed powers hanging over us. There are no fascists or communists calling for World War or genocide. And imperialism has largely broken down, with even people in Africa having greater access to food, water, and upward mobility.

Part of these positive outcomes result from the US' goals being somewhat benign. If you look at American foreign policy, especially in war, it often boils down to the US fighting for the side of "democracy." Unlike the British Empire or the USSR, which had started wars to increase influence for the sake of it, the US needed legitimate reasons to commit to conflict. It is after all a republic, and if a war was fought the people needed to think the war was right.

For instance, in both World Wars there was great hesitation to commit. In World War I especially, Americans found little difference between the imperialistic British, French, German and Russian nations that fought in the trenches. All had immigrants in America, and none had moral superiority. It was only after several German transgressions, like appealing to Mexico and sinking American ships, did the US join the Allies.

In World War II, the US was still reluctant, even when Hitler's Germany was considered a repressive regime. The U.S. saw Hitler as a threat only to Europe, not to them. Only after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in retaliation for embargoes were the Americans thrown again into war.

Later wars like Korea and Vietnam were fought against the rising tide of repressive, communist movements that sought to control every detail of people's lives. Even if the United States supported repressive governments itself, these dictators lacked the total control of communism. The US viewed communism as an infectious ideology that limits freedom and hope. If you consider that the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, and led to democratic reforms globally, the results were undeniably good.

Even the modern wars have little to do with power more than ideology. Although some skeptics claim that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria are so that the US can dominate the oil supply, there is little evidence for this. Although energy crisis would occasionally emerge, the US has not dominated oil supply in the Middle East because of its wars. In fact, the US has become nearly completely energy-independent with natural gas industry in its own borders.

The irony of American leadership is that when a nation's foreign policy is based on ideals rather than pursuit of power, the USA is actually more unconventional and unpredictable than its rivals. For instance, Obama declared the use of conventional weapons in Syria a "red line." He did this not because he wanted greater influence in Syria, or to topple a rival, or to create a new front against Russia. He did so because he (as most of Western civilization does) that the use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity, and there must be a response.

Although Obama did not invade Syria as he may have suggested, he asked Congress to vote on intervention (they voted no, knowing war would be unpopular). He then negotiated with Russia to have those chemical weapons removed from the country. None of these actions increased American power in any way, but did end the risk of chemical warfare reemerging in the modern world.

Though this foreign policy, based on American ideals is not uniform (the US still considers Saudi Arabia a major ally despite its repressive policies, and has toppled many dictators it deemed threats), it is still effective. It has allowed the US to have a role in every continent, allies globally, and often legitimate concerns. It has stumbled one more than one occasion, but the blame is usually attributed to incompetence or stupidity rather than corrupt greed.

And unlike other nations, the United States appears quite happy with the current world order. While China and Russia constantly push against international law and borders, the U.S. strives to preserve them. There is no doubt that the U.S. benefits off them, but it also lacks total control of its allies. The U.K's decision in Brexit is a good example, when Obama suggested it was a pretty bad idea.

The U.S.A. is the global superpower. This can make people uncomfortable, but here are some soothing facts. There are fewer deaths in war than at any time in history, largely because of the norms between nations that the U.S. tries to preserve. Even with global terrorism on the rise, it is far likelier that you will be in a car accident or be diagnosed with cancer than a bomb going off. And the police are not brutal shock troops of a dictatorial regime, but normal people trying to keep their communities safer.

Hillary Clinton is the Luckiest Candidate

If you look at all of the candidates who ran to be President of the United States this year, it is clear none was as lucky as Hillary Clinton.

Why? Well, despite all her negatives, despite how easily she could have been defeated electorally, she probably won't be. Because the opposing party nominated the one thing she can quite easily slay.

Start on the Democratic primaries. Only four other candidates decided to run, three of whom just weren't inspiring enough to come close to beating Clinton and probably did it for some recognition (it didn't work). The last, Bernie Sanders, had a message that resonated enough to look challenging, but didn't hold enough appeal to groups beyond young whites. And I know that is painting broadly, but Clinton did a complete sweep of the southern states (whose Democratic primary voters are nearly all minorities), so he clearly did something wrong.

But why didn't someone more appealing run? Joe Biden thought about it, but chickened out. And he probably did because Hillary has been planning on running since 2012, and has the money to make any real fight really, really challenging. The irony was that Sanders showed Joe Biden might have actually beaten her, and that her campaign cash wasn't as insurmountable as was believed.

So, she got lucky in the Democratic primaries. But that 'aint nothin' when it comes to the Republicans.

Firstly, a lot of those guys could have beaten her. Probably not Ted Cruz, who happens to be disliked by pretty much everyone but staunch Republicans, but most of them. Others, like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie could probably eke out a win, by focusing on economics and foreign policy (and Jeb's Spanish). And Marco Rubio would have absolutely creamed Clinton's clock.

But that wasn't made to be. Every establishment candidate knew they could beat Clinton, and therefore decided the way to become President was to first eliminate the other establishment candidates. Bush devoted his cash to taking down Marco Rubio. Marco and Cruz duelled over immigration. Chris attacked Marco on repeating talking points. Kasich didn't attack anyone, but reserved his own slice of voters who don't like attacking.

So when it turned out that Trump voters were 40% of primary voters, they easily smashed everyone else to bits. No one was left to unite that 60%, and Clinton was handed the gift of facing Donald Trump.

And Trump is a gift. Clinton has a talking point for nearly every demographic and why Trump wants to destroy their lives. Swing voters are quite happy to dump the Trump and head for the hills. It doesn't matter how bad Trump is, because Trump is worse.

Now, she can still lose. There are about 90 days left, and anything can happen. But right now Trump is predicting that the election is going to be rigged. It won't be, but after he loses he can claim it was.

Trump is not the Candidate of "Law and Order"

In the wake of the many tragedies in the U.S. over the past few weeks, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has taken to calling himself the candidate of "Law and Order."

I'm not a fan of the term for several reasons. It was first introduced in American politics by the Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964, an election that set the stage for modern politics. Goldwater's landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson set the realignment of both parties, making the Republican "Party of Lincoln" absorb the Dixiecrats who were rabidly against Civil Rights, with more moderates joining the Democrats.

"Law and Order" was then championed successfully by Republicans Nixon and later Reagan, who both stressed that the appropriate response to the rampant drugs and crime of the 1960s could only be confronted by harsher punishments and more incarceration.

Although one could say that Nixon took "Law and Order" perhaps too seriously, especially over anti-war protests, the policy was popular. Gerald Ford said "How long are we going to abdicate law and order in favor of a soft social theory that the man who heaves a brick through your window or tosses a firebomb into your car is simply the misunderstood and underprivileged product of a broken home?" The choice was between punishing crime now, or waiting to see if perhaps solving underlying reasons would solve it later. Voters enthusiastically chose Law and Order.

The policies are a bit of a mixed bag. The war on drugs has been a complete failure, with marijuana more popular than ever (even legalized in some places), and more dangerous drugs like heroin ascendant. Crime continued to rise throughout the 1960s until peaking at around the 1990s. Since then there has been a steady decline in crime, though whether this is due to Law and Order policies or other trends is hard to tell, as even Bill Clinton pushed mandatory sentences.

But the real problem today isn't crime, with violent crime only .387% and property crime only 2.9% (which is historically very low). The problems are far more emotional, as we see a mass murder every week, or an innocent's death by the police. Though the number of people killed are relatively low, with our 24-hour news it is easy to believe we are beset by terrorism, rioters, anarchists or racist cops.

And Donald Trump doesn't craft a very reasonable solution to that. He hasn't offered promises to give police, the military or mental health further funding. With the National Rifle Association's support, he hasn't made any promise to curb gun ownership from terrorists or criminals. His solution to terrorism seems to be "lock the door and keep the foreigners out," despite the fact that most terrorism in American is committed by "lone wolves" who were born poor in the US and became radicalized.

Whoever wins the election, it isn't likely to move the needle much, with most police and mental heath funded at the state level. But if you hear someone say they will bring in "Law and Order," think about what they mean, and whether it actually works.

Calling Terrorism "Radical Islam" Shouldn't Matter

In the wake of the Orlando attack, Hillary Clinton ended one of the Republican party's most-used critiques against Democrats. In a phone call the presumptive Democratic nominee called the attack an act of radical Islamic terrorism.

For almost every terrorist attack during Obama's tenure the President has avoided calling acts of terrorism by Muslims as acts of "Radical Islamic Terrorism." Republicans have often used this to criticize the President, saying that because Obama isn't bold enough to recognize the attacks for what they are he is ignorant or incompetent in the fight against Al Qaeda and now ISIS.

Hillary Clinton was clever enough to recognize this line of attack, as it was used against her after San Bernadino, Paris and Brussels. So she decided to simply say it was an attack of radical Islamic terrorism so that Donald Trump could not accuse her of being to politically correct to recognize the "real enemy." The Republican nominee instead claimed he had successfully predicted such an attack would happen and reiterated his ban on Muslims entering the country.

Obama's caution of using the term radical Islamic terrorism is understandable. Most Muslims (especially in America) are horrified at these attacks and are in no way connected to terrorism. And the President is no doubt afraid that by saying "Islamic" and "terrorism" next to each other will make people think that their Muslim neighbors are the enemy, and will start treating them as so.

But both the President and Trump are wrong about the term. Firstly, Obama doesn't need to feel afraid of saying radical Islam because essentially everyone knows that acts of terrorism like Orlando are done by Muslims. The 24-hour news cycle is quick to point out the attacker's religion, and it is constantly reminding us how ISIS is trying to recruit mentally ill and socially inept young people into committing horrific acts of violence. Although Obama's intentions are noble, it is like trying to stop a forest fire with a sprinkler.

But Trump and the Republicans' criticism of Obama is much more duplicitous. Obama is not cowardly by avoiding the words "radical Islam," or incompetent. In fact he has shown to be the most aware of the problems in the Middle East, knowing full well that large-scale troop invasions are both costly and ineffective at beating terrorism.

And more importantly, Republican leadership is well aware that whether or not the President says "radical Islam" nothing will change. Republicans will continue thinking that more should be done to combat ISIS, Democrats will think that most Muslims are blameless. And ISIS will not suddenly become afraid of the President, nor will American Muslims start fearing for their safety.

ISIS is afraid of the United States. They are slowly losing ground to the various forces facing them, from the Iraqi siege at Fallujah, and the emboldened Syrian government. Obama has very wisely decided to let the less radical factions in the area remove ISIS instead of direct involvement, and the strategy is working. ISIS' efforts to do terrorism involved is an attempt to gaud the US into attacking, which would be a useful recruiting platform to fight the "Imperialistic American infidels."

And American Muslims are already afraid. Donald Trump has already said he would bring back torture, kill the terrorists families and ban all Muslims from entering the US. Runner-up and so-called constitutionalist Ted Cruz said he would make the police patrol Muslim neighborhoods. And there are many efforts to block Syrian refugees from entering the country, despite it being far easier for a terrorist to enter with a student VISA rather than posing as a refugee with a family.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at that last one, as the US refused Jewish refugees during WWII and Vietnamese ones in their intervention. But the rhetoric is certainly spiraling into a dark rabbit hole, not just for Muslims but other minorities. Whether or not politicians say "radical Islamic terrorism" is unimportant, as terrorism is here and words won't change that. It is far more important that American leaders talk about the problems they face and how to solve them, rather than fixating on talking points that don't change anything.

The U.S. Election, and Why it is Totally Bonkers

The United States holds presidential elections that probably last the longest in the world. The 2016 race began when Senator Ted Cruz first announced he was running at the end of March 2015. The election will end in November, meaning people have been campaigning for this presidency for one year and seven months. Which means that there have probably been millions of different op-eds on this election, and yet here I am taking my own shot at it.

I'll start by saying this election simply has no precedent. It is completely insane.

One the Democratic side, the two remaining candidates are Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Both are unprecedented. Though women have run for president before, none has been as successful as Hillary, who has (and I am using the British betting markets for this) the odds of 4/11 of becoming the next POTUS. A woman has never been the nominee of a major party in the U.S, much less the president. What is even more shocking is that she has higher unavailability numbers than any person to run for POTUS, save for her even more unpopular opponent.

And Bernie Sanders is quite simply the most successful socialist in American history. Several socialists have run for office before, but none have cracked 10% in a presidential election or come so close to becoming a major party's nominee. It is actual proof that the word "socialist" is not the death-knell for electoral success that it once was.

The Republican side may be even more absurd. The presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, is a populist, but this isn't completely unprecedented. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater can all be considered populists. What is new is that Trump is the first nominee for a major party with no government experience, in anything. He was never a governor, a senator, a representative, a mayor, NOTHING. And that is exactly why people like him. And he also has the worst favorability of any candidate ever, including his opponent.

None of this is going to stop me from trying to predict the outcome, as I love predicting elections. I even predicted the last Canadian one correctly (although I didn't think the Liberals would win by such a large margin). So I will do my best here, and will keep my analysis to purely numbers and not positions.

1. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Sorry Sanderistas, but to overtake Clinton he needs not only to win all of the remaining states, but by margins up to 85% to 15%. Because delegates are given out proportionally, beating Clinton isn't enough anymore. You would need to win by margins comparable to Sanders Vermont victory, in his home state.

2. Sanders will get little concessions out of Clinton at the convention. She isn't likely to budge much farther than she has already, especially when she wants to attract moderate voters. What she may do is become more vocal about positions she already supports. For example, promising to nominate a Justice that would overturn Citizens United. She has said numerous times that she is against money in politics, so making such a promise isn't shifting, but it is a clear way to attract Sanders supporters.

3. Sanders will support Clinton. He's not going to enjoy it, but he will. Although there are sharp disagreements between him and the Secretary, he knows it is far better for his movement if Clinton is in the White House over Trump. They can continue to badger Clinton if she is POTUS, while Trump can easily ignore them. Though Trump and Sanders share similar opinions on free-trade they disagree on pretty much everything else.

4. Clinton won't get indited. The most similar high-profile email-scandal was General Petraeus, He was sharing confidential emails with his extra-marital lover, which is probably a worse crime than using a private server when you should have used the government one. The General was put on probation for two years and paid a $100,000 fine. Clinton can't be put on probation and can easily cough up that money, and such a result is still more unlikely because her breach was smaller.

4. Clinton will beat Trump. This requires a longer explanation. Many are concerned that Trump is pulling ahead of Clinton, with one poll beating her 45 to 42. But compare that number to 2012, when Obama beat Romney 51 to 47. In 2012, only 2% of voters chose a third-party. In the current poll, about 13% of people are choosing neither candidate.

A lot of voters make up their minds right up to the election. In 2012, it is believed that Romney's statement on how 44% of Americans don't pay taxes was the thing pushing moderates over the edge. So if we consider that 13% of Americans haven't picked which candidate they loathe more, let's think why.

The Democratic primaries still aren't over, and many Sanderistas think they may still have a chance. They really don't, but if any of them picks up a phone and is asked if they would rather have Trump or Clinton, many are currently happy saying neither. But when Sanders endorses her, and after months of Trump vs. Clinton coverage, most of the Sanders supporters will shift to her, and the polls will change to be closer to that Romney/Obama result.

And remember, in a tight poll the Democrats have the advantage. They undoubtedly hold the advantage with younger voters, who are less likely to have a landline and respond to a poll. This is a big reason I was wrong in my Canadian prediction, as I took the polls too seriously (which predicted a close Liberal minority government). Instead the Liberals over performed, as many of their voters had never answered a poll before. I never have, but my Grandparents have many times.

Although the overall result may be as close or closer than the 51% to 47% of 2012, the Democrats also have the advantage in the electoral college. In 2012 Obama crushed Romney by 332 to 206, despite a difference of 4% overall. There are simply more safe "blue" states than "red" ones. In order for the Republicans to win they need to win more states than the Democrats. Romney only got one swing state, North Carolina, which wasn't nearly enough.

Trump would have to win at least Ohio, Florida, and a couple others to win the election. The last time a Republican has done this was 2004, where Bush had the incumbent advantage. Since then we have a popular incumbent and the demographics have changed, both in favor to Clinton. It is believed with Latino support Clinton can still easily win Florida, and that alone gives her the victory.

The numbers since now can change, but I think if they do they will move in favor of Clinton. She is still competing against Sanders and will inevitably get his support. There are still Trump-Clinton debates to be had, which are probably his worst format and her best.

He still has a chance, as in any U.S. election there are only two options. A economic downturn or large terrorist attack can swing moderate opinion in favor of the Donald. But short of election-changing events, it appears that 2016 will elect the first woman as leader of the free-world.

The Canadian Election in Retrospect

In the months after the November election in Canada that brought Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party control of the country, Canada briefly became popular internationally. In a poll Justin was thought the most attractive world leader, and international media applauded the country for electing such a non-controversial looking fellow.

But I voted in that election, and it certainly was not without controversy.

The majority government to Trudeau surprised everyone, but then most people seem to be pretty okay with it now. Harper made a terrible campaigning decision to focuses on leadership when he should have focused on his economic record. He thought that by pointing out that Trudeau had little leadership experience people would realize that the sitting PM of nine years was the better choice. But by focusing on leadership instead of policy, he was directing attention not just to Justin, but to himself. And after nine years, most of the country didn't like him anymore.

The other option was Tom Mulcair of the NDP, who had little personality other than anger over how people disagreed with him. Trudeau was able to capitalize on this by essentially pointing out he was young, handsome, and a nice guy that wanted to do things differently. His campaign was pretty refreshing, as it was far more positive ("sunny ways") and he seemed more focused on getting everyone's vote than just his base.

Trudeau also got elected promising a platform that is pretty radical; he said he will run up deficits for the next four years in order to overhaul Canada's infrastructure to boost economic growth. The budget is already projected to run up higher deficits than the Liberals originally projected, but people probably won't get too upset even if they got more than they asked for.

Many people in the news are drawing comparisons of Trudeau to Obama, (Obama himself remarked on it) but Trudeau does have a huge majority so will get most of what he wants without much resistance, unlike in America where Obama lost the House of Representatives two years in office.

Canada's economic situation is a bit of a mixed-bag. Most GDP growth has been due to Alberta's oil sector, which has now tanked due to the oil price. The remaining sectors seem to be doing alright (depending on the sector), and the country seems to be in only a technical recession. Most people outside of Alberta aren't feeling too much of a hit (though that province has been hit hard). The NDP provincial government has made the situation even worse as they are trying to implement environment regulation and increase corporate tax.

Harper has done some great things in the past, as he's greatly lowered taxes, making corporate taxes lower than America's while income tax is lower than before. This is effective as it is really businesses that drives economic growth not an individual's spending. He also pushed the TPP and I'm a huge supporter of free trade (raising two billion people out of poverty). But Harper's approach to the current economic problem is to me deeply flawed. He wanted to focus on balancing the budget, which I think was important before the downturn but irrelevant right now (cutting government spending, or austerity, is not going to improve the economy if there is a recession).

The NDP promised they would balance the budget but made even more promises than the Liberals (such as free childcare) so few people took them seriously. Others decided Trudeau was "the man to beat Harper." An NDP government would be even more liberal than the liberals, as they would have broken the TPP and instituted government day-care and a whole bunch of other stuff that would be difficult to implement in this economic climate.

The Liberals main platform focused on a large infrastructure spending plan, which essentially amounts to "we don't care about balancing the budget for four years." It's going to throw a lot of money at the provincial governments in the hopes it will spur spending, efficiency and overall economic growth. It's Keynesian economics, that when times are tough the government throws money, when they are good they should scale it back. Federal Banks behave the same way with interests rates. Whether it will work I don't know, and there is going to be a lot of debt at the end of the tunnel, but we'll probably manage (we still have less debt per person and by GDP than a lot of developed countries).

The Liberals are going to cut tax rates slightly for 40-80k and raise them by the same percentage for 200k+ (29% to 32% I think). There aren't any other federal tax brackets. Corporate taxes won't change but they are going to close loopholes for both businesses and individuals. The Liberals are not adding any new program like day-care, and aren't even making federal environmental law, but are instead planning on setting a new emissions target and then working with each provincial government individually to work out how the target will be met. The Liberals are honestly quite moderate in those respects, as they aren't obviously socialist or obviously conservative.

The Liberals obviously won the election. The Conservatives look to be in full repair mode, ditching Harper as leader, and tacked left on some issues to appear more moderate. For instance, the Conservative's new interim leader says they have accepted gay marriage and are only concerned about Marijuana in terms of access to children. They appear to be trying to find a balance between criticizing the new PM without alienating voters that clearly like him (he has very high approval ratings).

The NDP are in worse straights. The Liberals outmaneuvered them by promising deficits while the NDP sounded unrealistic by promising a balanced budget and more benefits. The lost they most votes, and have returned to their third-party prospects. Mulcair has been ousted as leader which will trigger a leadership race, but both the Conservatives and NDP do not have clear frontrunners.

If the Liberals avoid controversy, they will have an effective four years of leadership, and may be able to maintain more.

Why Gun Control in Cities is Ineffective

I wrote the below after a conservative friend of mine sent an amusing joke, essentially explaining to me that "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

I tried to explain that although that is true, a gun certainly makes killing easier.

His message also referred to how Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St Louis, Baltimore and New Orleans all have Democratic mayors. If all of these cities disappeared, the U.S. would fall from 3rd in the world in murders to the 4th least.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Although specific cities may have lots of gun control, it isn't very effective. Baltimore (which of the list below seemed to have the highest murder-rate in America) may have lots of gun control. But Maryland in general does not. It bans short-barreled rifles or shotguns. Not a very long list, and sneaking weapons from outside Baltimore into the city isn't particularly difficult. Baltimore doesn't have border checks as far as I know.

Perhaps the mayor of Baltimore's intention was to make guns illegal so their price becomes higher on the black market. The higher the price, the less likely people are going to purchase. This is the same strategy used for illegal drugs. Limit supply as much as possible, people can no longer afford heroin and cocaine and purchases should go down.

Limiting supply for guns and drugs failed for different reasons. For guns, gun control nationwide is not uniform. A gun illegal in your metropolis may be easily purchased outside the city. A gun illegal in your state may be easily purchased on one bordering. Limiting supply in specific regions has little effect, as they can still be bought cheaply in a neighboring region for very little, with some small cost of smuggling in added on.

Drugs laws are actually fairly uniform across America (though with the legalization of weed in specific states that is starting to change). The strategy of limiting supply did indeed cause the price of drugs such as cocaine, heroin and meth to skyrocket (though not weed, because of lax enforcement and ease of access).

The strategy still failed for drugs because many drug addicts still needed the drug, and just turned to crime to get the cash needed to get their fix. In economics drugs are considered an "inelastic product" as changes in price don't actually have much affect on demand. It also made the profit margin so high for drug dealers that globally the U.S. is a lucrative market as people are willing to pay so much for drugs.

But if there was uniform gun control across the U.S. it is more likely to have the desired effect compared to drugs. Guns are not addictive. The bushmaster gun used at Sandy Hook costs $1000. You can purchase it in some states at Walmart. It is banned uniformly in Australia, causing its price to move up to $34,000. Very few sane criminals are willing to pay so much for a weapon, and would rather take the risk of doing crime unarmed or with knives (and stabbings have much higher survivor rates). The black market is also very restricted, and someone who is mentally ill is much less likely to make a purchase on the black market successfully.

The only people who are willing to make such purchases and have the mental capacity to do so are potential terrorists and organized crime. Both can only truly be stopped by a combination of surveillance measures and effective policing.

The vast majority of gun owners do not commit crimes. But "society only moves as fast as the slowest person." We have speed limits, demand seat belts to be worn, and ban DUI because a minority of people will make these actions without penalizations.

The 2nd Amendment was made in the 19th century so that America could have an armed populace to defend against foreign invasion. Today it is used as justification for people to own tools used in warzones.