By Whskyjack, a Trail Mix Contributor

Really, can’t anybody just shut the F#@$ up, just for a few seconds?

I just read this WaPo piece:

Inside Trump’s fury: The president rages at leaks, setbacks and accusations

This is a detailed account of Trump’s weekend, right down to minutes before the piece was written. It even had conversations with his golfing partners. It is an amazing piece of reporting, or it would be any other time and about any other administration, but with these goof balls it is just another day sharing stories with the press. The Trump people’s hatred of the press is all window dressing. In fact they love to gossip with reporters. If you are a Washington reporter and you don’t have your pet Trumpista by now you need to get in a different business.

LOL, Just sayin’………………………

More Posts by Whskyjack

By Whskyjack, a Trail Mix Contributor

Who does or doesn’t attend the inauguration event is unimportant. However, the fact that we have a peaceful transition of power is very important. In a world where too many transitions of power end up with the execution of the losers. it is something to celebrate. Where and how you celebrate it is your choice.

Donald Trump is the legitimately elected President of this nation. He won it fair and square by the rules in place. Unlike the previous Republican president he didn’t use the court system to circumvent the rules. In that regard he is my President. Am I happy about it? No. But my happiness is irrelevant. Elections being what they are, there are winners and losers.

At least in this country the losers get to live to fight another day.

And fight we should. fortunately there are many ways to fight for the causes we believe in without violence and with respect toward those we fight. There will be plenty of time to do so later.

Right now I hope those who participate in the inauguration and those who just look on, taking in the rare spectacle of it all, have a safe and fun time. I wish I could have been there to watch HRC take the oath of office. But it was not to be. However like baseball there is always next time.

More Posts by Whskyjack

By Whskyjack, a Trail Mix Contributor

It is a fact that every politician understands. It is also the test for every newbie. And they don’t come any more newbie than Donald Trump. His test?   The favors he received from the Russians. Is he bought? or is he independent? It is critical as to how he responds. So far like any newbie he is clueless.

The title quote is from California politician Big Daddy Unruh

More Posts by Whskyjack

By Whskyjack, a Trail Mix Contributor

I clipped a few paragraphs from an article  by Lawrence Lessig, it is a long piece but well worth the read and just maybe if …………

Lester Lawrence “Larry” Lessig III is an American academic, attorney, and political activist. He is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the former director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. Wikipedia

The Equal Protection argument against “winner take all” in the Electoral College

Most people, even Dems, can’t seem to allow themselves to even think about a constitutional challenge to the Electoral College — because they’re convinced our current Electoral College system is embedded in the Constitution. So when someone says, “what about one person, one vote,” they respond, “it’s the Constitution that creates this inequality—just as with the Senate—and the Court is not going to overrule the Constitution.”

Yet that response misses a critical point.

Yes, the Constitution creates an inequality because of the way it allocates electoral college votes. A state like Wyoming, for example, gets 3 electoral votes with a population of less than 600,000, while California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of more than 37 million. Thus, while California has a population that is 66x Wyoming, but only gets 18x the electoral college votes.

But the real inequality of the electoral college is created by the “winner take all” (WTA) rule for allocating electoral votes. WTA says that the person who wins the popular votes gets all the electoral college votes for that state. Every state (except Maine and Nebraska) allocates its electors based on WTA. But that system for allocating electoral votes is not mandated by the Constitution. It is created by the states. And so that raises what should be an obvious and much more fiercely contested question—why isn’t WTA being challenged by the Democrats in this election?

Also

The 2000 election was the first time in US history that the candidate losing the popular vote won a majority of the Electoral College outright. Now that has happened again in 2016. The major contributing factors to this outcome are the winner-take-all system of allocating Electors coupled with the growing concentration of the US population in a handful of States. These factors create a substantial risk that a candidate that loses the popular vote would win the Electoral College outright even if the small state advantage did not exist. This election is a clear example of that risk. To be clear, Trump did not win the Electoral College because of a constitutional design, he won because of the winner-take-all system of allocating Electors and that critical legal factor is strictly a function of State law…………..

In summary, a winner-take-all system of allocating Electors by the states denies the minority of voters within each state any representation whatsoever within the Electoral College and ultimately in the case of the 2000 and 2016 elections, denies the plurality of voters nationwide their choice for President under circumstances in which the constitutionally established small state advantage made part of the Electoral College wouldnot. This is neither a reasonable nor a rational result in a representative democracy. This result was dictated by the winner-take-all method of allocating Electors used by the states. It is this state law method of allocating Electors that is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and its bedrock principle of one man one vote.

To read it all

Slate breaks the traditional information embargo on election coverage with estimated results throughout the day.

By WhyskyJack, a Trail Mix Contributor

It is why the Cubbies are no longer the lovable losers and why my Royals won last year.

It is at the heart of the Clinton campaign decision making.

And in a controversial move Slate is going to use it to give us real time estimates on who is winning throughout the day.

From Slate:

Here’s a longer description of how this whole thing works. The project can be broken down into two phases: what happens before Tuesday, and what happens on the day itself. In the lead-up to Election Day, VoteCastr conducted large-sample surveys in eight battleground states. Unlike a typical media poll that might ask hundreds of respondents dozens of questions, these surveys presented thousands of people with just a handful of queries each. The results were then run through predictive models to determine the probabilities of each voter in each of the eight states casting a ballot for Clinton, Trump, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. (VoteCastr did not include Evan McMullin in its models. The independent candidate is only on the ballot in two states we are tracking, Colorado and Iowa.)

The other piece of the pre–Election Day puzzle is early voting, which now accounts for an estimated 30 to 40 percent of the general election vote. Local officials collect and report information about who voted early in each state in advance of the election, and VoteCastr then compares that public info with its own private voter files. To understand how this works in practice, consider my early ballot, which I cast in Iowa City last week. Though VoteCastr doesn’t know who I voted for, it can make an educated guess based on the things it does know about me: my age, race, and party registration. Our friends at VoteCastr tell me the model believes there’s a 97 percent chance I voted for Clinton. When my name shows up on the list of people who voted early in the Hawkeye State, VoteCastr will use that number to fill in the blank. These voter preference estimates allow VoteCastr to make more specific forecasts about the early voting split than most other modelers, which simply sort returned ballots by party registration.

Slate is taking a lot of criticism for doing this while the polls are still open, but if they go ahead with it and it works (a risk in itself) then the flood gates are open.

Is it good? Is it bad?

Eh, I don’t know but I really don’t see how anyone can stop it.

Slate’s Votecastr page:
slate.com/votecastr

More Posts by WhskyJack

VoteCastr Estimates (4:40pm ET)