Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Of Course Trading for Bowe Bergdahl was a Mistake

Bowe Bergdahl at the Fort Bragg military courthouse
When Bowe Bergdahl, a soldier in the United States Army, was traded in exchange for five Taliban members in 2014, President Barack Obama held a press conference celebrating his return. Many Democrats and liberals in media followed suit. In fact, before the trade Fox News was criticized in July 2009 because retired Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters said on of their programs that Bergdahl "abandoned his buddies, abandoned his post, and walked off." Peters, who is known for his blunt personality, doubled down.

Fast forward to 2017 and the "hero" Bergdahl has pleaded guilty to desertion. His decision to flee led to the deaths of six soldiers who were searching for him. In my opinion, the costs were of the trade were too great and I am someone who believes terrorists should never be negotiated with. Obama's decision was a disaster and it should've never been made. Sadly, Bergdahl won't be suffering any punishments for his desertion. The judge has ruled no jail time.

Eight years after being attacked by politicians and media pundits, Ralph Peters wrote an excellent opinion article on the Bergdahl decision. He concluded:
This case isn’t just about punishing one jerk. It’s about the combat effectiveness of our military in time of war. While the man is judged, the institution is sentenced. 
That judge condemned the institution when he decided that Bergdahl should go free. 
We expect explanations. 
Meanwhile, Bergdahl can celebrate. The activist left can celebrate. Former President Barack Obama can claim redemption and Susan Rice can grunt with satisfaction that, despite his dishonorable discharge, Bergdahl kinda-sorta “served with honor and distinction,” didn’t he? 
And the widows Bergdahl’s actions left behind can go to hell. Wives serving their own life sentences of caring for heroes incapacitated by wounds because of Bergdahl’s treachery can be damned. His comrades who served honorably can kiss off. Let’s all line up and spit on those who serve proudly. 
This is a wonderful day for America’s enemies, foreign and domestic.

Friday, October 20, 2017

The Right Rises Among German-Speaking Peoples

Angela Merkel's speech following electoral victory - Reuters
No one was surprised when the Christian Democratic Union secured its fourth term. Angela Merkel's popularity has declined since the last federal election in 2013, but not by enough for her premiership to be in any serious danger.

Yet despite the celebrations among CDU voters, there is some rightful concern. Since first becoming chancellor in 2005, she steadily moved her party to the center. This opened up a vacuum on the right that could be exploited in the event of a crisis. The Syrian Civil War triggered the exact confrontation that Merkel hoped to avoid. No one should deny that Merkel has incredible talents as a politician. She has maintained a coalition of center-left, center-right, and more ideologically conservative voters, but over 1 million CDU supporters decided to vote for the Alternative for Germany and Alice Weidel. The CDU won 32.9 percent of the German voters. They won 41.5 percent four years ago.

The final results from the election on September 24 are as follows:

Christian Democratic Union (Angela Merkel) - 246 (-65)
Social Democratic Party (Martin Schulz) - 153 (-40)
Alternative for Germany (Alice Weidel) - 94 (+94)
Free Democratic Party (Christian Lindner) - 80 (+80)
The Left (Sahra Wagenknecht) - 69 (+5)
Green Party (Katrin Göring-Eckardt) - 67 (+4)

Forming a coalition will not be easy for Merkel. Social Democratic Party leader Martin Schulz has declared that there will be no coalition with Merkel following the election. The SPD continues to find itself in a worse political situation following every election. Even if Schulz wasn't going to become chancellor, there was some early anticipation among SPD loyalists that he'd at least increase the size of his party in the Bundestag. Alas, his party only won 20.5 percent of the votes, down from 25.7 percent in 2013.

There are two parties that Merkel won't form a coalition with. Unmistakably, the AfD is not an option because of their staunch opposition to the European Union and to migration. The other party she vehemently opposes is The Left. For readers of my blog who aren't familiar with this party, it basically encompasses old fashioned communists and younger voters who hold a romantic view of the pro-Soviet German Democratic Republic.

Christian Lindner at an FDP rally in December 2013 - Adam Berry/Getty Images
That leaves two other parties. The Free Democratic Party was the junior partner of a coalition with the CDU after the 2009 election. In 2013, the party faced a major setback when they failed to meet the 5 percent threshold needed to be in the Bundestag. Fortunately, FDP leader Christian Lindner repaired the party's imaged and doubled the vote total, from 4.8 percent in 2013 to 10.7 percent now.

While the AfD is similar to Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, the FDP would be the party of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich. In general, Merkel has a fiscally conservative economic record, which is why she finds the FDP appealing. The problem is a coalition between the two still does not meet the number of seats needed for a majority.

The final party to win seats is the Green Party. As in the United States, the Greens in Germany are what you expect. They are a left-wing party that emphasizes environmental protection. Merkel does have a strong environmental record, but that might not be enough to bring them into the fold. It's hard to see the FDP and the Greens working together in a coalition. What's being called the Jamaica Coalition is possible, but demanding.

In response to the AfD's rise, Merkel wants to take her party even further to the left. At a conference for the youth-wing of the CDU, she said she believes the party prioritizes the economy too much and should focus more on individuals. Jens Spahn, a CDU member of the Bundestag, holds a very different view. In his speech the night before at the conference, he asked, "Does anyone seriously believe we lost 12 percent to the AfD in Baden-Württemberg is because of old-age care policy?"

This election could very well be Merkel's last. The question is what kind of party the CDU will be when she leaves (if she leaves before the next election at all). Merkel is doing her best to prevent a major shift to the right, but I can see that happening when she's gone. If the CDU continues to follow her beliefs, then it could lead to more losses in the next federal election. Conservative voters are deeply concerned with the refugee crisis, but at the moment a U-turn within the CDU will not take place under Merkel.

Sebastian Kurz gives his victory speech - Reuters
While the AfD won't be part of any coalition in Germany, their equivalent in Austria will have power. The New People's Party has won first place with 62 seats, a gain of fifteen. Their leader, 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, will seek a coalition with the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria. Europe's first millennial leader will give right-wing forces in his country the ability to implement an agenda.

The FPO has a neo-Nazi past, but has become more mainstream under leader Heinz-Christian Strache. Anti-Semitism has been dumped for opposition of Islamic refugee migration and economic nationalism. He has said that Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated in his government. As for the larger party, Kurz has brought other, more symbolic changes as well. Originally, it was called the Austrian People's Party until he changed the name. Additionally, he changed the color from black (traditionally used by parties on the right, including the CDU) to turquoise.

The rise of the Austrian right poses major problems for Merkel and her ally Emmanuel Macron. He has been an outspoken critic of the European Union and demands that his fellow leaders do more to defend their borders. He also wants to limit access of refugees to welfare. As for European politics, Kurz says he wants to "bridge" the divide between western European leaders who want to keep the status quo and eastern European leaders who desire reform.

Kurz can be a very promising leader if he plays a crucial role in improving relations among European countries. At the same time, his rise is another defeat for Europe's establishment. While they've enjoyed recent victories in the Netherlands, France, and somewhat in Germany, anti-EU populism can still find areas of success.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Merkel Set for Another Easy Victory

Angela Merkel and Martin Schulz before a debate.
German voters will go to the polls on September 24. Some of the key issues are how to treat refugees from the Middle East, Germany's position in the European Union, and its position in the greater world. Through the last four years, Chancellor Angela Merkel has suffered several setbacks, yet she has survived every one of them and is set for another landslide this year.

Problems arose with her decision to accept a seemingly unlimited number of refugees into her nation. She faced a threat from the right. Voters who had more nationalist, patriotic, and Eurosceptic views abandoned the Christian Democratic Union for the Alternative for Germany. The AfD became known as the anti-EU insurgency party. Some members of the CDU began to question Merkel's leadership. Her party was weakened by regional defeats.

Yet those who believed Merkel was on the ropes don't know her too well. Her extreme pragmatism is what keeps her in power and she was aware of the challenges. The CDU's promises in this campaign include boosting deportations of refugees who have links to ISIS or do harm in Germany, increasing defense spending to the NATO requirement of 2 percent of gross domestic product, and has maintained that the United States still remains Germany's most important partner outside of Europe despite disagreements with President Donald Trump.

Decisions like these were attractive to new AfD members, so they rejoined the CDU. Secondly, some of these voters might be thinking strategically and have decided to back the center-right CDU in order to avoid the rise of a Social Democrat chancellor.

At this time, the SPD has been making no gains in the polls. This means that they'll likely remain the junior partner in a coalition government or even lose that position if the pro-market Free Democratic Party secures enough seats for a more right-wing coalition with the CDU. In a very clever moment, SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel decided to resign for the good of his party. Martin Schulz took the reigns and offered a clear leftward direction. His manifesto included not raising military spending to the 2 percent of GDP level and greater protections for refugees. The race started to tighten as the SPD shot up in the polls, but momentum stalled almost as soon as it started.

A state election in North-Rhine Westphalia should've been easy for the SPD (Schulz was from there after all), but on May 14 they received disappointing results. The CDU had momentum and won a close race. The SPD has slid back to where it started before Schulz became their party leader. Part of this is due to being in a grand coalition with the CDU. They share the achievements of the last four years. The number of votes who are in traditional blue-collar occupations (the kind of workers the SPD has historically appealed to) has reduced from 37 percent in 2000 to just 19 percent today. There's also the German economy, which has been very strong under Merkel's leadership. The party already looks like it is moving on to the next election.

I predict the CDU will win by a large margin, securing somewhere between 35 and 37 percent of the German vote. The SPD will probably win between 22 and 25 percent, with all the minor political parties around 10 percent or less. This leads to the difficult business of coalition making. In 2013, the Free Democratic Party failed to meet the 5 percent threshold needed to have seats in the Bundestag. They were the junior coalition partner in Merkel's government after 2009 and if they win enough seats this they could be again. The chancellor would prefer a coalition with the FDP because they offer similar parties than the SPD does.

Alternatively, if the CDU and the FDP is not enough, then there's also the option of making the Green Party a third partner. This is being called the "Jamaica coalition" because of the colors of three parties. This coalition would be difficult due to the leftist slant of the Greens, but could be the only option if Merkel wants the SPD out of the equation.

As for the United States, President Trump has many differences with Merkel, but there is no doubt that she is going to be the chancellor he has to work with for the rest of his term. That means maintaining free trade agreements and close diplomatic relations with the Germans. They are a nation the United States cannot afford to ignore.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Trump Drops the Ball on Charlottesville

Donald Trump's response to the terrorist attack in Charlottesville could've been stronger had he not attempted to defend some members of the alt-right in a Tuesday press conference. During the conference, which took place at Trump Tower in New York City, the president said this:
All of those people — Excuse me — I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee. 
So — excuse me — and you take a look at some of the groups and you see and you would know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases, you are not. But, many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. So this week, it is Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?
Except the people at the rally in Charlottesville and at the one the night before are anti-Semites and racists. The event was hosted by the likes of Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch. Trump referred several times to that night rally, where hundreds of alt-right members were carrying tiki torches to look scary (they actually looked ridiculous). At the rally, they chanted "Jews will not replace us." There was more to it than defending Confederate statues. They want to exterminate people they don't like.

That's what a neo-Nazi is and the president should know it. Trump has never been a great communicator, but he at least needs to be a competent communicator if he wants to stay as president. Attempting to defend some people in the alt-right is not the way to do that and it will only hinder the progress of his administration.

Batman: The Enemy Within Review

Following the popularity of Batman: The Telltale Series, Telltale Games decided to release a second season on August 8 called Batman: The Enemy Within. I finished playing episode 1 and while I won't be able to complete the game until all episodes are released in the next several months, it does successfully build off  of the first season. I also think it improves from some of the last season's weaknesses.

Since the storyline is interactive, players are forced to make changes that effect relationships in the game. This season introduces players to Amanda Waller, who is often at odds with James Gordon. Both have different methods to fighting crime, leaving the player to choose between the two of them. Is Gordon's traditional style of following due process the just way to hunting criminals or is it preferable to be like Waller and throw civil liberties out the window?

In other cases, players will have to decide how much information they want to give to others. It could help build trust with one character, but it could also risk Batman's secret identity. Speaking of his secret identity, players will also find that they have to spend a good portion of time playing Bruce Wayne.  As Wayne, players can find alternative means to go after criminals. A wealthy businessman, Wayne is guaranteed to attract attention from villains, which endangers himself and his allies. How this is handled is up to the player.

As with Telltale's previous games. Every choice has positives and negatives. Unlike past games, which merely reveal statistics of what choices all the players made, this one includes relationship statuses that could alter the direction of the game in the future.

This season introduces the player to new villains in the series. In addition to the Joker, you'll face the Riddler in this game and he's significantly better villain than Jim Carrey's portrayal in the atrocious Batman Forever. Riddler's obsession is to prove that he's more intelligent than Batman. He wants to prove it by breaking Batman's moral code. This will lead the player to make other tough choices. It also sets up the main premise of this season. Should Batman do everything he needs to defeat the villains, even if it means other people will get hurt?

Telltale's games aren't without their weaknesses. The QTE sequences can get very repetitive, though with each game they do get more complex. I think with every game, the company is trying to experiment more. They know they can't give out the same materials every time, so they have to build-off on what they have.

In truth, if you don't like the Telltale style by now, then don't bother. If you're indifferent about it, but like Batman, then it is worth a go. The story and the interactive gameplay is what matters, so if you really like Batman or have had a lot of fun with previous Telltale titles, then this is for you.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

The Threat of the Alt-Right

It has been seventy-six years since the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor. The attack crippled the U.S. Pacific Fleet, but soon Japan and the rest of the Axis regretted their decision. The entrance of the United States into the Second World War ensured Allied victory. The losers were Japanese imperialism, Italian fascism, and German Nazism.

Before American entered the war, a Nazi group called the German-American Bund promoted an alignment with Germany. Only German who moved to the United States and Americans of German descent were allowed into the group. Like the Nazis, the German-American Bund promoted the views of anti-Semitism, white supremacy, and nationalism socialism. The group faded from any relevancy when Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States, following Franklin D. Roosevelt's declaration of war against Japan.

Although the organization was small (at its height there were only 5,000 to 10,000 people signed as members). Rallies could often include larger numbers. Their largest was in Madison Square Garden in New York City, where 20,000 people were in attendance.

Like the German-American Bund, the modern alt-right endorse Nazism and their strength is thankfully limited in the thousands. Even so, they manage to draw attention to themselves like their predecessors did. The night before their big rally in Charlottesville, alt-right members marched in the University of Virginia with torches. It was reminiscent of the Nazi marches of the 1930s.

Then came the day of the "Unite the Right" rally. The white supremacists were met with thousands of protestors to counter them. Protestors who believed in equal rights. That's when a car driven by one of the racists plowed through a group of the counter-protestors, killing one and injuring many others. Two state troopers died in a helicopter accident responding to the attack.

Two things have led to the rise of alt-right in our society. The first is that the memory of World War II is starting to fade. It will be a sad day when there's no more veterans who fought in the war. We will have our historians and textbooks, but knowing and listening to people with personal connections is always different and makes a greater impression on people. Decades from now, college students can read about the experience of a GI on D-Day, but they wouldn't be able to actually meet them.

The second is that the alt-right feels emboldened with Donald Trump's victory. The president himself is not a Nazi, but no one can doubt that he's had problems with calling out white supremacist groups. Back on the campaign trail in February, he refused to disavow the KKK and racist activist David Duke. He later backtracked and said he had a bad earpiece. His father was arrested following a KKK riot in 1927. The alt-right believes Trump's concerns over immigration and foreign policy means he is speaking to them. He isn't. He has criticized the actions taken by the alt-right member.

The alt-right replied by attacking Trump. Duke attacked Trump by saying it "was white Americans who put you in the presidency." Newsflash to Duke: white Americans make up the majority of the country. Every president was elected with the support of many whites, as well as blacks, Latinos, and Asians.

I think Trump's speech should have been tougher on the alt-right groups, but he has done what would be done. Racism has no place in our country and it is the job of every American to confront it. It is also important to remember that we're not fighting a war. We should never engage in violence of our own, even though their views are horrifying. Everyone has right to say what they want and we have a right to call them out for it.

Paul Ryan's Easy Opponents

Ryan in Janesville - Gannett
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is set to run for another term in the House of Representatives. He has been winning nonstop in Wisconsin's first district since 1998 and that doesn't look like it's going to change. In addition to becoming a giant of national politics, his opponents are bumbling fools.

I'll first address Ryan's Republican primary opponent Paul Nehlen. While I have brought up Nehlen before on this blog, they were only passing references. I was too busy focusing on the presidential election to look into the 2016 GOP primary in the first district. I did, however, believe that it was very likely Ryan was going to win another term. The truth is Nehlen is an embarrassment for Wisconsin Republicans, many of which take pride in the fact that one of their own is the top man in the House of Representatives.

Now that I have time to focus on the race in the first district, I just want Republicans there to know that Nehlen knows little about Wisconsinites and only seems to be in it for himself. According to Jeremy Carpenter of Media Trackers, Nehlen has registered to vote in four different states over the last ten years. He has voted or has been registered in Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In the case of my home state, Nehlen voted here in 2008 presidential election and in the 2012 gubernatorial recall election. He came back from Michigan in 2014 and voted in the gubernatorial election. Does this sound like someone who truly understands Wisconsin?

Since his first campaign, Nehlen has established a super PAC called Citizens Revolt. Don't donate to it because it's a total scam. Carpenter looked into the controversy, finding that Nehlen hired Dan Backer, an attorney based in Washington DC. Backer has been infamous for his involvement in many super PACs, many of which have been proven to be scams that only benefit employees running them, not Republican candidates or voters.

After losing in 2016 by a landslide, Nehlen has returned. Though he might win more votes this time from Republican voters who are dissatisfied with Ryan, it's obvious he's going to get pummeled again.

While Ryan will likely win the Republican primary, his main opponent is expected to be Democratic activist and ironworker Randy Bryce. Bryce received national attention for his announcement video, which focused on the impact on his family if the Affordable Care Act would be repealed. Yet if Obamacare was so appealing to him, it's worth asking why he'd want a single-payer health care program to replace it.

Bryce is clearly hoping to focus on domestic issues and wants to appeal to blue-collar workers who voted Republican in 2016. His greatest weakness is that he also has to confront foreign policy issues. It is in this area that Bryce is lacking. In an interview with Fox 6 on July 5, he showed major ignorance on a serious threat to global tranquility. First Bryce said, "I don't have information on what North Korea launched." After that, he stated "we're going to take a trip later this month to Washington D.C.to get better educated on the issues, and I hope to have more information then." Candidates should already be informed on the issues before they run.

Sometimes Congress has to vote on a declaration of war. Do we want someone who knows nothing about our enemies voting on legislation to approve conflicts? I don't and neither should anyone else. The North Korean crisis is difficult issue involving crimes against humanity, nuclear weapons, allies like South Korea and Japan, and enemies like Russia and China. We require knowledgeable politicians to handle it. Bryce is clearly not one of them.

Somewhere, Paul Ryan must be smiling.

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Republicans Need Legislative Victories

The Republican Party is in their most powerful position since 2004. They have control over both branches of Congress and the presidency. They controlled none of these back in 2008, but they rebuilt their party by making promises to the American people. Repealing and replacing Obamacare was one of those promises.

The health care reform failure shows that these promises may not be fulfilled. The hard work to reverse Obama's signature legislation ended with three Republican senators. They might not get a chance to repeal Obamacare again. If this was their only bill, then there's little chance the Republicans could make gains in Congress (most importantly the Senate). An opinion article for The Guardian helps explain why many conservatives are feeling right now:
Back then, repeal meant, at minimum, doing away with major parts of Obamacare: Medicaid expansion, subsidies, all the new insurance rules and regulations and taxes that the law imposed on health insurance and ordinary Americans.
Of course, it was easy to make such statements in the fall of 2015. Barack Obama was never going to sign a repeal bill, skinny or not. In hindsight, the dozens of repeal votes from Republicans in both chambers seem now to be so much political grandstanding. Moderate Republican senators who voted for full repeal in 2015 hypocritically oppose it now, and conservative senators who opposed skinny repeal in 2015 supported it on Thursday. They are all guilty of the same rank hypocrisy. 

There is a grave danger for Republicans in all of this. If there’s one thing the 2016 presidential election should have taught the GOP establishment, it’s that Americans are disgusted with politics as usual – the showboating, the sloganeering, the canned talking points and the pervasive, poisonous insincerity of it all.
Failing to repeal and replace Obamacare means that tax reform is even more critical. The GOP has to run on something in 2018. The Republican Party is the supply-side party of the United States. Every Republican in Congress supports reducing the tax burden. The big question is how.

A tax cut for the American people might seem easy, but that's until you get into the details. Let's the corporate tax cut is going to decrease the rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. There could be a divide between more moderate Republicans who want something like 30 percent and more conservative Republican who'd prefer around 10 percent. Then there's the many deductions and special tax credits. Will different Republican want to change different portions of the tax code while defending others?

In the White House, Steve Bannon (ever the populist), has been calling for a top income tax rate of 44 percent while cutting taxes for poorer Americans. This might seem like a good idea, but it's better to reduce taxes for everyone. There's no way a majority of Republicans would support his proposal.

One thing is clear: no matter the divisions, Republicans have to come together and finally pass a flagship item of legislation this year. That means President Trump has to get involved and push harder than he did for health care.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

The Wisconsin Boom Continues

Walker announces the Foxconn deal at the White House - Associated Press
The Foxconn deal is the latest great news for the Wisconsin economy. An electronics manufacturing corporation, Foxconn was looking to establish a plant in the United States and many states competed for it. In the end, Scott Walker managed to secure the deal for the Badger State. It's a big win for Wisconsinites.

If the deal goes according to plan, the new plant will create 13,000 jobs, offers employees an average annual salary of $53,875 plus benefits, and an investment of $10 billion. It will include the construction of a massive manufacturing campus. In addition to the workers at the factory, there will be $5.7 billion spent on the construction, which support 10,000 direct and 6,000 indirect jobs.

Like many other businesspeople, what attracted Foxconn chairman Terry Gou to Wisconsin were the incentives Walker and Republican legislators have implemented over the years. Tax relief for the company included $1.5 billion in income tax credits for job creation, $1.35 billion tax credits for capital investment, and $150 million for the sales and use tax exemption. In total, Foxconn gets $3 billion in tax credits and exemptions over fifteen years.

Politically, this places Walker in a strong position for re-election next year. Scott Walker's economic model has led to a major boom in the state economy. Unemployment has continued to go down and is now at 3.1 percent. If the job growth continues, then Walker could soon hold the record for the lowest unemployment rate in Wisconsin history. Unlike at a national level, labor force participation continues to rise. At the moment, Wisconsin's unemployment rate is the seventh lowest in the county and the labor force participation rate is the fifth highest in the country.

Democrats often love to point to Minnesota as a liberal success story while ignoring other states, but Wisconsin's unemployment rate is now lower than its western neighbor's. Then there's the Midwest state every Democrat prefers to ignore: Illinois. In response to the Foxconn announcement, the editorial board of The Chicago Tribune unloaded on state Democrats, especially leaders Michael Madigan and John Cullerton:
Cranky Springfield apologists for Madigan and Cullerton will say we're overreaching, that Gov. Bruce Rauner is somehow to blame for losing Foxconn to Wisconsin. Except Rauner has been pushing exactly the kinds of employer-friendly reforms that Madigan and Cullerton have resisted, often to please their allies who lead labor unions.
It's Madigan and Cullerton who've set up Illinois to fail in these contests for jobs. Madigan and Cullerton who haven't sent Rauner a no-gimmicks property tax freeze to even slightly offset the extra $5 billion their income tax hike will gouge from companies and workers. Madigan and Cullerton who won't make major fixes to a workers' compensation system that drives away employers. Madigan and Cullerton who can't deliver significant pension reforms to Rauner's desk. Madigan and Cullerton who can't bring themselves to slash that costly roster of 7,000 local governments.
A statement by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin reveals the little ammunition they have to attack Walker on the Foxconn deal. They thank Senator Tammy Baldwin and Representative Mark Poncan, rather than Wisconsin's governor, for somehow being responsible for Foxconn's Wisconsin plant. They then go into the concerns that the jobs being subsidized by the government aren't going to offer "a living wage and safe working conditions." Walker can see a third term on the horizon.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Trump Might Just Destroy Himself

There's no doubt that I've underestimated Donald Trump. I was wrong about him in the Republican nomination race and I was wrong about him in the general election. I could be wrong about him now, but I consider my disagreements with the president's media strategy as merely advice. Right now, I think Trump could use some good advice.

Though polls have lost their credibility in the wake of the 2016 election, it's hard to believe that his latest approval ratings are off by wide margins. A Gallup poll shows him with only a 37 percent approval rating. When it came to the election, the national polls were off by 1 or 2 percent (remember that Hillary Clinton still won the popular vote). I hardly believe the Gallup poll is somehow off by ten and his real approval rating is something like 47 percent. Polls can be inaccurate at time, but they don't miss something by that much.

Nevertheless, a very loyal Trump supporter could tell me that polls don't matter anymore because the his re-election bid isn't until 2020. What I am concerned about is the way the president is destroying himself and the Republican Party with the way he handles the press.

In the past, I've mentioned something called political capital. Think of it as the money a president has. That money is then spent on things they need to do. They aren't just spending political capital on policies, but also in defending themselves against the media and handling spontaneous problems that arise in any administration. Lower approval ratings and media unpopularity do drain political capital and make it harder to pass and implement legislation.

Now it is important to recognized that all of the blame should not go to Trump. I think a handful Republicans in Congress are complete imbeciles when it comes to health care reform. Even though it's a only small number who are causing trouble, the ramifications will hit almost every Republican member of Congress in the 2018 midterms.

Trump comes into the equation because most midterm elections are simply referendums on the president. Political analyst Sean Trende pointed this out in the 2014 midterms. In the states where President Obama's approval rating was at 44 percent or lower, Republicans gained Senate seats. The Republicans do have some good news. There's only a handful of seats they have to defend and most of the states they're in are very conservative. Republican voters are also more likely to show up in midterm elections. That being said, even one defeat makes governing harder. They only have 52 of the 100 seats. We should also want to gain seats in the Senate, not lose them.

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who didn't vote for Trump, has consistently noted that the president has no character. That isn't likely to change, since he's over seventy, but a lack of character only hurts himself. This isn't The Apprentice. Shapiro writes:
Trump, his conservative defenders said, was a real-estate mogul — the most powerful real-estate mogul in America. That made him, by inductive reasoning, a decent person, despite his adulterous liaisons.  
But many conservatives refused to acknowledge the two points about Trump that should have given them cause for concern, even if they believed the somewhat flawed meritocracy-character link. First, Trump didn’t earn his magnate status; Trump inherited a massive amount of wealth from his father and, by most available estimates, has significantly underperformed the real-estate market. Second, and more important, there is at least one area of meritocracy where conservatives discard the supposed character-success link: in the entertainment industry. Conservatives have always understood that talent for entertaining and quality of character may actually be inversely linked: You’d be hard-pressed to find a conservative touting Kim Kardashian’s success as proof of her good character.  
Trump is an entertainer. He acts like an entertainer. He obsesses about his ratings, he spends hours on his hair, he agonizes over public perceptions of his successes and failures. He cannot bear to be out of the spotlight, and he feels personally threatened by those who occupy it more than he does for any period of time. 
Conservatives wouldn’t pretend that Paris Hilton would make a good president because she’s so successful in her other ventures. Yet many conservatives told themselves a story whereby Trump was more Warren Buffett than Paris Hilton, so they could continue to maintain the positive image of his character.
When the president isn't busy attacking MSNBC hosts for their facelifts, he is on the defensive over the Russian investigation. There's still no shred of evidence to prove Trump personally colluded with the Russians, but his son Donald Jr. certainly attempted to do so. Actions like these only damage the popularity of the Trump administration and force his team to deflect new questions. It also gives Robert Mueller the justification he needs to continue his investigation

Trump's tweets and interviews only seem to hurt himself. His attacks on his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, only damages his agenda and allows the media to focus on the negative parts of his presidency. The president said he would've never hired Sessions if he knew he was going to recuse himself. Worse, Trump hasn't backed down from his criticisms, calling Sessions "weak" on crimes committed by Hillary Clinton. Comments like these only draw suspicion.

Mueller has strong credentials and is respected by both sides of the aisle. With twelve years of experience as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he has little to be worried about and a seemingly limitless abundance of resources. Trump might have a history of handling litigation, but when it comes to the presidency things are very different. Social media offers our politicians a new medium to communicate with the people, but this can be good and bad. Right now, Trump's use of social media is create self-inflicted wounds.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Revisiting Seattle's Minimum Wage

Restaurant jobs have stagnated in Seattle MSA since the $15 proposal
Any regular reader of this blog knows that I'm no fan of minimum wage hikes, especially the latest calls by Democrats for $15 an hour. Despite the lack of empirical data backing such a policy proposal, the left has pushed this as an issue for years. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer all support the creation of a "living wage" to help workers. These lawmakers should read the latest findings on how the minimum wage has impacted businesses and workers.

Across many cities, mayors have signed these $15 an hour policies. Seattle is one of the cities that is currently underdoing a phase-in to the new wage rate. Back in 2015, I posted about an unusually large closure of restaurants in Seattle as the minimum wage increase began. This should have been an early warning sign for Mayor Ed Murray and the city council, but they did nothing to avert the economic consequences, even though the trend of closing restaurants has continued. Now the empirical findings are starting to come out and they don't look good for the "Fight for 15" crowd.

First, a little background. Seattle had been funding research on their minimum wage increase at the University of Washington. When the latest budget was being proposed, the city decided to end the funding after preliminary results were provided because they didn't like the methodology, Councilwoman Kshama Sawant calling it "flawed" (I wouldn't trust any politician with no economic background on knowing what the right methodology is for studies).

When the study was published by the University of Washington economists, it revealed just how disastrous the minimum wage hike has been. The number of hours worked by low-wage earners has been reduced by 9 percent. This resulted in a loss of 3.5 million hours worked per calendar quarter. Even though hourly wages in these jobs increased by 3 percent, total payroll fell and low-wage workers saw their earnings decrease by an average of $125 per month. The study also took into account alternative estimates that show the number of low-wage jobs declining by 6.8 percent. That's less 5,000 jobs. Keep in mind that Seattle hasn't even reached $15 yet. The current hourly minimum wage is $13.

The politicians running Seattle knew that bad news was coming, so they decided to call up economists at the University of California-Berkeley to hastily rush a study showing the minimum wage hike has no negative impact. It was published a week before the University of Washington study came out. This study, however, has many flaws. Unlike Sawant though, I will cite someone who does have a background researching the minimum wage.

Michael Saltsman, the research director of the Employment Policies Institute, read the Berkeley study. He found a deep level of coordination between the economists at Berkeley and pro-minimum wage advocates. The studies out of Berkeley are always positive, making it a place progressive lawmakers want to go to when they need good news. They aren't exactly known for their accuracy and in the case of Seattle the University of Washington had access to better data on individual workers, giving it more depth.

The Seattle minimum wage drama will continue and it will be interesting to see what other research is published on the effects of $15 an hour. This experiment has the chance to impact proposed policies at state and even a national level in the future. As of now, it isn't looking good for minimum wage increase proponents.

Friday, July 14, 2017

More Government in Health Care Fails

When it comes to debating policy issues like health care, Democrats regularly use emotional arguments to advocate for more government intervention. Many politicians on the left are starting to advocate for a single-payer system in which everyone is covered by the government. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren go on and on about it. One of Paul Ryan's candidates, Cathy Myers, wants a single-payer system.

There are two factors that account for the foundation of the argument. The first is the failure of the Affordable Care Act. Having insurers provide coverage to people below market levels was never going to work. With the insurers losing money, they're forced to pull out of exchanges across the country. You can find news about these departures monthly. Ohio has lost two in two months. The worst case is Iowa, which has lost its last major health care provider.

This problem isn't going to go away. Forty-nine counties are expected to not have any Obamacare providers in 2018. Another 1,300 counties are projected to only have one next year. That's over 40 percent of the counties in the United States, covering 2.4 million people who receive coverage from the Affordable Care Act. In 2009, the expected cost of Obamacare over ten years was suppose to be $848 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The law, of course, didn't go into effect until 2014 and now the CBO's projected cost is $1.805 trillion over 10 years. This policy is not sustainable, but many Democrats are arguing for more government spending as way to explain the ACA's failure.

The second factor that has led to calls for a single-payer system is the ludicrous belief that health care is a right rather than a commodity. Worse, these new "rights" impose burdens on others. In the case of a single-payer system, it would be taxpayers and doctors. These are not the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that are inalienable in this nation. They are instead any privilege that politicians believe should be transformed into rights, the costs of them aside.

Since health care is a commodity, the only thing that can make it cheaper are incentives and labor freedom. Government intervention does not encourage people to become doctors because of the heavy regulations they will be forced to follow. Many may not even accept government-sponsored health insurance. A single-payer system offers no incentives to make health care more efficient. All it does is decrease the quality of care and leads to larger supply shortages in order to cover everyone.

At least there are some good signs across the political landscape. The failure of Obamacare led to the rise of Donald Trump and Republican control of Congress. It's an agonizingly slow process, but it is likely that the country will get health care reform that reduces government intervention. Offering expanded tax-free Health Savings Accounts and tax credits based on income, location, and age are a step in the right direction.

With the death of Obamacare imminent, proponents of the law are using increasingly emotional rhetoric to prevent repeal. The most dramatic of these is the argument that thousands of people will be killed with the end of the ACA, but a report by Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute refutes these political statements. While there are people who have benefitted from various portions of the law, it has not improved the health outcomes of recipients. No lives have been saved from the ACA.

Another good indicator is that Democrats in California (of all places) are turning on a state proposal for a single-payer system. It sounds nice to give everyone free health care until you realize it isn't free at all. If California implemented a single-payer system, the annual cost would be a gigantic $400 billion. That's more than double the state's budget. In order to finance the program, the proposal called for the state to refinance $200 billion towards single-payer with the rest being made up in (you guessed it) new taxes. Revenue is a problem for any lawmaker who proposes a massive government overhaul of a health care market. That problem created a massive wall for the legislation, which isn't going to be voted on in the Assembly.

The costs of excessive government programs is starting to catch up with the Democrats. Republican victories in Congress and the White House are leading to the end of Obamacare. The costs of expanding government further with single-payer are beginning to drawn on many members within the Democratic Party. No matter how spirited the left is in America, established single-payer in states or at a national level would be ruinous.

Sunday, July 2, 2017

Friday the 13th Review

In late May, the survival horror game Friday the 13th was released by developer IllFonic and publisher Gun Media. In the game, you're randomly chosen to play either counselors or Jason in a multiplayer match. If you're one of the counselors, then you have to escape or survive the night before Jason kills you. If you play Jason, then you're job is to kills as many counselors as possible and sabotage their means to leave the camp.

Overall, I have enjoyed the game and both player modes are very fun. While most players want to be Jason, I actually find playing a counselor more exciting. The developers of the game certainly pay homage to the original movies. The ten counselors you can play are all classic 1980s horror movie stereotypes. There's a nerd, a prep, a flirt, a rocker, and so on. These characters aren't all playable at the beginning, but they will be unlocked as a player gets more XP. Each character has different pros and cons. Some have better stamina, while others are very good at repairing the cars and boats you need to escape.

When you play a counselor during a session, it is your mission to escape. This is very tricky because you don't where Jason is or who he will kill first, but you can acquire weapons to defend yourself. If he attacks you, then you can fight back with something as small as a pot or as large as an axe. There's two firearms in the game, a flare gun and a shotgun, but these only have one round of ammunition in them (and there's always the chance you can miss).

As a counselor, you'll be running from cabin to cabin in order to gather what you need to escape. Usually, there are two vehicles in a session. There's a car and a boat, but they both need to be repaired. You have to search for the car battery, the propeller, gasoline, and a key to get them working. Another way to escape is by calling the police, which can be done by repairing the fuse box for the phone.

Sometimes player like to team up together. Doing this has advantages and drawbacks. If Jason attacks you, then someone will be there to have your back. However, Jason will always pursue where more players are and the larger your group the bigger the target. Ways to slow him down include setting up bear traps, using pocketknives, and distracting him with fire crackers. When driving in the car, you often face the moral dilemma of wanting to rescue other people or just escaping on your own. The longer you're in the map, the longer you are in danger, but that also goes for your fellow counselors.

There is one super character in the game who can kill Jason. His name is Tommy Jarvis (a character from three films in the movie series) and he's a hunter that can be radioed for assistance. A player will be randomly assigned as Jarvis if he is radioed and he is a significantly better character than the other ten. The ability to kill Jason will only happen if certain conditions are met in the game.

While I like playing a counselor in the game, Jason is fun because he's almost completely unstoppable. In order to make the game fair, he is generally slower than the counselors, but he makes up for it by having four special abilities to locate the counselors and surprise them. You are given the option to play a variety of Jasons from the different movies, but only as you gain more XP. As with the counselors, there are differences with each one. I don't have a personal favorite, so I usually just randomize it.

Jason's mission is quite simple. All he has to do is kill all the counselors and he stop their progress several ways. You can cut the power, set up your own bear traps, destroy windows in cabins so the broken glass can injure them, and using throwing knives. The best part about playing Jason is the many different ways you can kill a counselor. Before starting a game, you can customize the signature moves of your Jason and use them in the session. Many of these kills come from the original movies.

While I like Friday the 13th, there are some negatives. Although it isn't a problem anymore, the first few weeks of the game were disappointing because of how long it took to enter a session. The developers fixed the problem with a patch, but many customers weren't happy. I do like how they rectified the problem for the player. One week they decided that everyone who played the game would get double XP.

My other criticism of the game is the that there are only three maps. These maps are fun, but they do get boring and I hope the developers add more. Aside from these two problems with the game, it's very enjoyable and if you're a fan of the movie series then you will love it.

Thursday, June 29, 2017

Energized WI GOP Prepared for Dismayed Democrats

Republicans gathered in Wisconsin Dells this year - Fox 6
The contrast between then enthusiasm and degree of power between the two major political parties in Wisconsin couldn't be more striking. Members of both parties convened at annual conventions this month. The Republicans held their convention in Wisconsin Dells, while the Democrats gathered in Madison.

At the GOP convention, Scott Walker made it clear that he was going to run for a third term. He highlighted the reforms he has pursued as governor and is ready to do more for the state. Walker is in a good position to run for another term. President Trump's surprise victory in Wisconsin last year left the Democrats in shock. It's one thing to lose to the Republicans in midterms, but the Democrats haven't lost at the presidential level since 1988. Walker has proven again and again that he can win and the Democrats have little talent left.

Going into the Democratic convention, several potential candidates declined from running. Former State Senator Tim Cullen, Madison businessman Mark Bakken, and former Green Bay Packer offensive lineman Mark Tauscher have declared that they will not challenge the governor. Walker is simply too formidable an opponent for many Democrats.

Following the convention, there are only a few major players in the race for gubernatorial nominee. Mayor Paul Soglin of Madison is now considering a run for governor. He has greater name appeal than Mary Burke did in 2014, but most Wisconsinites weren't interested in electing a Madison liberal. It is unlikely that little has changed. The one thing he does have going for him is similarity to Bernie Sanders when it comes to politics. Soglin has been a hardcore leftist for decades and could certainly excite thousands of young liberals to back him.

The other serious candidate is State Senator Kathleen Vinehout of Alma. She comes from a more rural area of the state, which means that she has less appeal than Soglin at the moment. Democratic voters are concentrated in Wisconsin cities like Madison, Milwaukee, and Eau Claire. She will need to do a lot of work if Soglin runs against her. The only Democrat is who is actually running is college graduate Bob Harlow, who just moved from California and has no chance of winning the election.

When it comes to the Senate, there are many Republicans who are intent on campaigning in 2018. State Senator Leah Vukmir, State Assemblyman Dale Kooyenga, Madison businessman Eric Hovde, and veteran Kevin Nicholson are all in the pot. Vukmir, who actually represented Walker's constituency when he became the Milwaukee county executive, was the favorite coming out of the convention. It didn't deter Hovde, who has sold $14 million in stock in order to have a large war chest for the primary. It might have stopped Green Bay philanthropist Nicole Schneider from running. She has announced that she will not run for Senate.

The Democrats will have to focus on defending Tammy Baldwin in 2018. They re-elected Martha Laning to another term as chairwoman of the state party. Laning's biggest problem is that she led the state party to electoral disaster last year. Not only did the Democrats lose the presidential election in Wisconsin, but also the Senate election against Ron Johnson. It won't be an easy task and many Democrats don't have a problem with aggressive rhetoric, Gwen Moore being the main culprit.

While Walker is likely to win again, the Senate race will probably be more difficult because it closely attaches with Trump, who has low approval ratings right now. Even so, I always like to note that everything is possible. Wisconsin Republicans are continuing to damage themselves with the battle over the state budget. Democrats could exploit this division to win. As always, Wisconsin is a battleground state. Our races are usually tight and that's unlikely to change in the future.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Don't Mock Otto Warmbier

Otto Warmbier  - DPRK
When Otto Warmbier, a 22-year-old University of Virginia graduate student, travelled to China in 2015 he was given the opportunity to visit North Korea. He decided to go to the country, probably out of a sense of adventure. He was detained at Pyongyang International Airport on January 2, just after his arrival. Two months later, he confessed to the crime of stealing a North Korean propaganda poster. Whether he actually did or not is up to debate. After being in prison for seventeen months, Warmbier was finally released. It was then revealed that he had been in a coma for most of his time as a captive. He has now passed away, spending his final days in a Cincinnati hospital.

If given the chance to go to North Korea, I would immediately decline. The country takes advantage of westerners every chance it gets. It uses them for exchanges to gain resources and for public relations to bolster the regime. The socialist dictatorship prefers to build a nuclear program instead of feeding the people. The infrastructure is outdated and few North Koreans have electricity.

From what friends and teachers have remarked, Warmbier was a smart and fun guy to be around. That being said, I'm sure he was aware of the dangers of going to North Korea. He should have never went on that trip in the first place. Despite his fatally foolish decision, Warmbier's death is more about the nature of the North Korean government. In my view, it is a government that must be extinguished from the Earth. Kim Jong-Un should not be the leader, he should be the prisoner. Warmbier is not at fault for the existence of a genocidal regime.

As I heard the news about his death, I just assumed virtually everyone thought like I did about what happened to him. I still think that's true, but I am surprised at the leftists who are mocking Warmbier while ignoring the greater humanitarian crisis in North Korea. Thundering from The Huffington Post is La Sha with her article titled "North Korea Proves Your White Male Privilege Is not Universal." She posted:
What a mind-blowing moment it must be to realize after 21 years of being pedestaled by the world simply because your DNA coding produced the favorable phenotype that such favor is not absolute. What a bummer to realize that even the State Department with all its influence and power cannot assure your pardon. What a wake-up call it is to realize that your tears are met with indifference. 
As I’ve said, living 15 years performing manual labor in North Korea is unimaginable, but so is going to a place I know I’m unwelcome and violating their laws. I’m a black woman though. The hopeless fear Warmbier is now experiencing is my daily reality living in a country where white men like him are willfully oblivious to my suffering even as they are complicit in maintaining the power structures which ensure their supremacy at my expense. He is now an outsider at the mercy of a government unfazed by his cries for help. I get it.
Her attempt to compare Warmbier's punishment in North Korea with blacks in the United States is absurd. Her article makes his death a race issue, by arguing that he learned that his "white privilege" does not help him in Asian countries. There were others who took more time to criticize Warmbier rather than the North Koreans. A Salon article quoting comedian Larry Wilmore was titled "America's biggest idiot frat boy." It has now been removed. Left-wing Affinity Magazine joined the chorus with a tweet:
Watch whiteness work. He wasn't a "kid" or "innocent" you can't go to another country and try to steal from them. Respect their laws.
By now, I'm not surprised that social justice warriors want to make a race issue out of anything. We've seen it before with other topics, including Call of Duty: World War II. Analyzing the assassination of Otto Warmbier and merely seeing him as a white guy who's "privilege" doesn't work in North Korea shows exactly what is wrong with the modern left. There's no focus on addressing the government itself and how to finally dismantle its torturous reign.

Finally, I want to address Warmbier's "crime." I'm not buying anything the North Korean government said, which is known to create obvious falsehoods. Phil Robertson, the deputy director for Human Rights Watch's Asia division, hit the nail on the head when he called Warmbier's trial a "kangaroo court." I don't think he committed any crime and the accounts of when the police arrested him seem to confirm my views. Additionally, I don't believe he was placed in a coma because he contracted botulism. I think North Korean prison guards were behind his severe brain damage by beating him.

What happened to Otto Warmbier has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the real dangers that exist with North Korea. For the sake of humanity, the United States must find a way to overthrow the dictatorship and spread liberty to the millions of North Koreans who need it.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

May holds on to power, but barely

Theresa May forms a government with her husband Philip at her side - PA
It was expected to be an easy victory for the Conservative Party, but in our tumultuous era everything can change swiftly. Theresa May declared an early election in April to enlarge her majority in the House of Commons. It was going to be an overwhelmingly victory, comparable to the triumphs of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. The Labour Party, now controlled by the far left who pushed out Blairite moderates, was going to collapse. May's position as prime minister seemed to be unstoppable. Now, with the dust settled, where did it all go wrong?

First, a look at the results of the election:

Conservative Party (Theresa May) - 317 (-13)
Labour Party (Jeremy Corbyn) - 261 (+29)
Scottish National Party (Nicola Sturgeon) - 35 (-21)
Liberal Democrats (Tim Farron) - 12 (+4)
DUP (Arlene Foster) - 10 (+2)
Sinn Fein (Gerry Adams) - 7 (+3)
Party of Wales (Leanne Wood) - 4 (+1)
Green Party (Caroline Lucas) - 1 (+/-)
SDLP (Colum Eastwood) - 0 (-3)
UKIP (Paul Nuttall) - 0 (-1)
UUP (Mike Nesbitt) - 0 (-2)

Last blog post, I thought it was important to note that British voters were ditching smaller parties in favor of the top two. Strategic voting played a massive role in this general election. The Conservatives increased from 36.9 percent of the popular vote in 2015 to 42.3 percent. The Labour Party had an even more impressive surge, going from 30.4 percent to 40 percent.

David Cameron won 11.3 million votes in 2015 and May won 13.6 million this time. She won more votes than Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and 1983. Ed Miliband won 9.3 million votes in 2015, but Corbyn garnered 12.9 million votes. Not only did Corbyn manage to close the gap between him and May, but he won more votes than Blair did in 2001 and 2005.

Smaller parties collapsed. When Nigel Farage led the UK Independence Party in the 2015 general election, he was supported by almost 3.9 million voters (12.7 percent). UKIP only won less than 600,000 votes this time around (1.85 percent). Paul Nuttall, the UKIP leader, has resigned. An alarmed Farage is now considering returning as UKIP leader again because he is concerned that Brexit may be in jeopardy.

A similar phenomenon took place in Northern Ireland. Two parties, the Ulster Unionist Party on the right and the Social Democratic & Labour Party on the left, both lost all their seats. Northern Irish voters rallied behind the top two parties in their region. The Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein both made gains.

The Scottish Nationalists remain at third place, but they lost a large number of seats. Most of the changes went to the Conservatives. Sturgeon seems to have overplayed at the Scottish independence issue. No one can deny that Ruth Davidson's leader of the Scottish Conservatives was tremendously critical to keeping the Conservatives in power.

The odd exception to this result is the Liberal Democrats. The party received slightly less votes than it did in 2015, but managed to gain three seats. It just goes to show that in the British electoral system it matters where you expend your campaign resources.

Corbyn celebrates the 2017 election  - Dominic Lipinski/PA Wire
For the Labour Party, this isn't a political victory, but it is a moral victory. There were expectations that Labour would perform poorly and that Corbyn would resign. Now Corbyn has every reason to stay as party leader by showing that he has encouraged a large number of voters to enthusiastically support the party. Many of  his biggest supporters were younger and they will be voting in many elections to come. It would be foolish to get rid of him.

Corbyn's rise is also a great victory for socialism. The ideology hasn't proven to work and is economic disastrous. Billions of people have suffered from leaders who instrument with socialism to various degrees. Unfortunately, for many voters it does not matter what the historically and current results of socialism have been. It sounds very appealing by having the government solve everything. The election results in the UK, however, legitimize socialism in the very country that founded modern economics. Corbyn was the Bernie Sanders of Britain.

National security issues also benefitted Corbyn. Despite his poor record on terrorism, voters liked to see that he wanted expand the size of the police force. In the midst of terrorist attacks in Manchester and London, Corbyn's support continued to bloom. Rather than look strong and stable, May looked weak and unstable. A last minute attempt to prove herself by saying that she would potentially roll back human rights laws seemed to hurt more than help.

Now we come to the prime minister herself. Her gamble didn't pay off. She rivals Hillary Clinton for the worst campaign ever run in recent history. It's the kind of victory that feels more like a defeat. The way she ran the campaign is also to blame for the loss of the majority. The Conservatives rely on older voters in the elections and asking them to pay for more of their social care didn't sit well with many of those voters. Then there's the issue of May moving her own party to the center, looking like a "red Tory."

Like moderates in the Republican Party alienating Reaganites, May's decision to find a middle ground between the free market and socialism disappointed Britain's Thatcherites. May was criticized by some in her own party for appearing to abandon Thatcherism. Her problem now is that she made moderate promises that she must deliver on. The "dementia tax" was removed from the manifesto, but other policies were not. If she does plan to implement her proposals, then she could face resistance from the die-hard free marketers in the Conservative Party.

The path forward for May is going to be difficult. Luckily for her, the right has managed to win more than the left. She can still govern by the slimmest of margins by forming a coalition with the DUP. Northern Ireland's largest right-wing party managed to win the largest number of seats in their history. Adding the 317 Tories with the 10 Democratic Unionists gives us 327. The prime minister will have a majority of one.

Running a coalition isn't impossible. David Cameron did it with the Liberal Democrats. Before him John Major managed to do it with the Ulster Unionist Party, another right-wing political party in Northern Ireland that has lost a great deal of support in recent years. There is the matter of what the Democratic Unionist Party wants. DUP leader Arlene Foster is on the right, but she prefers a "soft Brexit" rather than the "hard Brexit" that May desires. The Democratic Unionists are also more socially conservative and are the only party left in the United Kingdom that does not support gay marriage. Several members of the DUP have made controversial statements in the past, which could hurt the government as a whole.

This is the situation May finds herself in, but things do get worse. A poll found that nearly 60 percent of Conservative Party members want her to resign. It could be just a shot of emotion following the election results, but if they continue to put pressure on her then she might have no choice. There is some good news for her. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, the Tory who led the Brexit campaign, doesn't seem interested in challenging her. Nevertheless, May's battle to stay in Downing Street begins now. I'll finish this post with May's speech after the election:

Monday, June 5, 2017

A Tory Landslide or a Hung Parliament? Nobody Knows

May addresses the country over the London terrorist attacks - CNN
When Theresa May announced a general election to be held on June 8, the prime minister was hoping for a landslide Conservative victory to primarily help her negotiate Brexit. At the time of her announcement, she led in all the polls by double-digit margins:

ICM/The Guardian (4/18): Conservatives 46%, Labour 25%, Lib Dem 11% - Con +21
YouGov/The Times (4/18-4/19): Conservatives 44%, Labour 23%, Lib Dem 12% - Con +24
Survation/Mail on Sunday (4/21-4/22): Conservatives 40%, Labour 29%, Lib Dem 11% - Con +11

Since that announcement, the Labour Party has rocketed upwards in the polls. May has been hurt by terrorist attacks in Manchester and London. Her party's manifesto also took damage due to the infamous "dementia tax" to fund social care. There was a U-turn over the promise in four days.

Politically, the terrorist attacks and the Tory manifesto have helped Jeremy Corbyn immensely. His socialist economic proposals are wrong, but no one doubts that the emotional messaging they provide has worked. The Labour leader is pouncing on May's weaknesses. After all, she ran the Home Office, a department with control over law enforcement, before becoming the prime minister.

One of Corbyn's biggest promises is one to hire 10,000 additional police. He can make himself look stronger on law and order than her (since the Tories were returned to power in 2010 law enforcement has cut 20,000 police officers). He has called on May to resign because of the attacks have happened under her watch..

The most flawed part of his argument is that even if he hires more police, he hasn't proven to be capable at all with addressing terrorism. Police can prevent crimes, but more often than not they're reactionary. They're are the responders when a terrorist attack is committed. As for Corbyn's record on terrorism and conflict, it is abysmal.

The Labour leader once worked for a pro-Soviet newspaper called Straight Left. He has accepted payments to be featured on an Iranian television station numerous times. That television station has also taken part in broadcasting forced confessions by arrested journalists. He appears to have no problem with showing up on totalitarian regimes. He refuses to denounce terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which he considers to be "friends." Corbyn also believes Britain has not fought a "just war" since 1945, angering veterans of the Falklands War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, and fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The British are placed in a tight spot, but I think May is starting to realize that things need to change with how her government approaches terrorism. She has used increasingly forceful language over the last few days on the topic and when she leaves the European Union her country will have more flexibility to handle terrorists. She has pointed out that there is "far too much tolerance of extremism" in the United Kingdom.

Her options include further government surveillance of Islamist activity on the internet and returning to an older bill for broadening the number of people who can be investigated by law enforcement. The bill initially failed to pass because they couldn't properly define "extremism" and "British values." These terrorist attacks could renew interest in the legislation. She also backs the law enforcement use of "shoot to kill" while Corbyn opposes it.

The British general election is even more confusing with the large disparity in the polls. Here's what the three pollsters I showed above currently indicate:

Survation/Mail on Sunday (6/3): Conservatives 40%, Labour 39%, Lib Dems 8% - Con +1
YouGov  (5/29-6/3): Conservatives 42%, Labour 38%, Lib Dems 9% - Con +4
ICM/Guardian (6/2-6/4): Conservatives 45%, Labour 34%, Lib Dems 8% - Con +11

That's quite a difference. The YouGov is actually quite different than the other two. It asked over 50,000 people over several days. The two polls by ICM and Survation are more traditional and asked between 1,000 to 2,000 people. YouGov doesn't always ask such large samples (the one from April with The Times was a traditional poll), but this poll was their most recent.

Based on the polling data, this general election is looking more like one from the 1970s and before. This is due to the collapse of UKIP and the Liberal Democrats. Neither party is expected to make any major gains in the election. UKIP voters want Brexit, so they support the Conservatives. Liberal Democrats are center-left on the economy, so Labour aligns closer to their views. Even though Lib Dem leader Tim Farron is targeting the 48 percent of voters who opposed Brexit, few of the Remain camp have answered his call.

I think there's a variety factors that will decide the results of the British election. The Brexit referendum had very high turnout and many of the voters who supported it have an interest in keeping the Conservatives as the governing party. There's also the "shy Tory factor" that significantly tilted the 2015 election in favor of the Conservatives. If there is a greater number of Conservative voters than expected, then we could still see the Conservatives winning in the double-digits. However, momentum is on the side of Labour in this election. Corbyn is like Bernie Sanders. He has excited many young voters and they could be just as determined to vote in order to prevent Brexit and move the country in a more socialist direction.

The British election is highly unpredictable. I still think the Conservatives will win with a larger majority than before, but the tighter YouGov and Survation polls indicate a hung Parliament. May is still the favorite, but if I was her I would be concerned.