Thursday, May 7, 2015

Q&A - 7/5

John McCain

[About the 2008 US Presidential election, on his choice of S. Palin, paraphrasing] I cannot say it was the wrong decision to choose her as my running mate. She energized the base, and we had an upward momentum, then the 2008 financial crisis happened and ruined it for us.

You were toast before then

Sarah Palin as VP candidate might have "energized the base", but McCain campaign was a lost cause before that; it would have been with or without Palin. The Time for Change model predicts a definite loss for McCain (or any Republican) using June 2008 numbers -- popularity, two term-ness, and gdp. Out of these, net popularity for the sitting president, Bush, was first of all insanely bad, -37. This number in fact is a record low for any post-WWII election. GDP was anemic sure, at 1.4%, but no different from Obama's 4 years later. The point is, the crisis had not peaked at this point, it would have done so later in August. So if we can predict definite loss using precrisis numbers then there was nothing McCain could have done. All Obama campaign had to do was to associate McCain with Bush, and they did that, but frankly they didn't have to try too hard on that either.

This also suggests all the "campaign wizardry" that is attributed to the Bama campaign did not tip the balance to one way or another, as well as the lofty rhetoric that promised "Big Change". Bama played to the culture code, which for a president in US is MOSES, a person who will lead people to the promised land, so forth. This message is on code, but if you are Moses then ppl expect you to divide the effin Red Sea you know what I mean? Bam fell short on that promise which hurt his ability to govern effectively later.

Other patterns I noticed: players on both parties seem to know TFC model, conciously or subconciousy.. The younger, "untried" candidates seem to come out (or pushed forward by the Integrators) during these times. Right now Reps have a certain amount of advantage for example, and lo and behold, there is a stampede in there. People are stepping on each other to be the Rep candidate; Rubio stepping on Bush who used to be his mentor (Reps are pretty hierarchical usually, so this is considered a major diss in the ranks), other younger blood left and right, and all kinds of drama... It's fun to watch for sure though.


[For UK] For all of the punditry around the [use of] social [media before the] election there’s little evidence of much action from the main players. Content from the two main political parties published on social media has so far been less about providing a personal feel of the candidates, or offering an informative or inspirational narrative and more about point scoring.

It probably wouldn't make much difference

Elections are a blunt instrument, and people use rough data points to decide.

Lars Ulrich

[Drummer of Metallica, complaining about his band's music being copied] Just because you are plumber, it doesn't mean you fix my effin toilet for free.


Good one. But the plumber cannot copy his plumbing service, cannot be in two places at the same time, so this is not a fair comparison. If we had Matrix-like skill transfer program, for bike repair, for flying a plane, or for plumbing, then that code could be copied, so potentially in that case a plumber AI could fix your effin toilet for free.

There is something else though.. I think Lars thinks he is better than the plumber. He could make millions from concerts, other things Metallica sells without selling records (which he could still do by the way, through music services) I guess he is sad because he won't make billions. The plumber does not have that choice, he is mired in low tech, non-replicable service providing. My question is why should Metallica be treated any different from the plumber? Same can be said about being a stock trader, investor, etc.. It is simply a skill that is no different from another. But one can be replicated, can snowball, others can't.