Why Selzer is the best pollster

 Most pollsters go into creating a poll with a demographic model. The population has X% of 65 and older and Y% of them vote traditionally. This is a reasonable method if things are the same from one election to another.

Selzer says she goes in without any model. She allows the numbers tell the story. In 2016, her method predicted Trump was going to win by 7. (He won by 9.) Her poll was the canary in the coal mine. Iowa is demographically similar to Wisconsin and Michigan. If Trump wins Iowa by 7 then there is a decent chance he could win those states as well, which he did.

I came appreciate Selzer as a genius in the 2008 Iowa caucus.

Take yourself back to the cold days of January 2008. Democratic top tier candidates are all Senators: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and Barack Obama. By December it's down to 3 - Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.

Who is going to win is answered by answering, "How many Iowans will the winning candidate need to win?"

Previous caucus attendance:

• 2000 Caucus: 61,000 Iowans
• 2004 Caucus: 124,000 Iowans

All campaigns agreed attendance would increase in 2008. Perhaps 160,000 or maybe even 180,000 will show up. Clinton's well run campaign was confident they had 60k voters locked up. In a 3 way race this would be enough to win. Edwards campaign was equally confident. (Although I was on Obama's team I had good friends the other camps and we were honest with each other about what we were hearing.)

Then came the final Selzer poll that jolted all of the campaigns. Here two big predictions: Obama is going to win by 7 points and the turnout will be around 220,000.

My Clinton friend said they had no problem disregarding the poll as a whale of an outlier: The data didn't match anything their field operation was seeing and it is preposterous to believe 100,000 more Iowans would caucus in 2008 than in 2004. 

Selzer's premise was that other pollsters were polling those like me who had caucused before. Two massive groups were being missed: Young people and disaffected Republicans. (There is a saying in politics, "Candidates who rely on the youth vote cry on election night.") Caucuses are a serious time commitment of 2-3 hours and most young people won't do it.

Because it is a lot of work to caucus there was no reason to believe Republicans and Independents would make the effort. It was bold of Selzer to predict these groups would turn out in massive numbers. 

Result?

239,000 Iowans came out to caucus in 2008. Nobody - not even the Obama campaign - predicted turnout that high. 

• 38% Obama
• 30% Edwards
• 29% Clinton

Selzer not only blew every other pollster out of the water but she had a better feel for the electorate than the internal campaign numbers.

******

Selzer is hardly a Democrat pollster. Her 2016 prediction of a 7 point Trump win was a massive wake-up call that Clinton was in danger in blue wall states of Wisconsin and Michigan. In 2014, there was a close Senate race to replace Tom Harkin. Selzer's last poll accurately predicted that Republican Ernst would win it comfortably.

******

Because Selzer randomly calls every number she is able to get a pool of voters other pollsters won't get. In 2008 pollsters only dialed registered Dems. Some only dialed registered Dems with a history of going to the caucus. Quite simply, they missed the new/young voters and the Republicans and Independents. Her method costs quite a bit more but has proven to be more accurate. 

2024 Electoral College prediction

This is my conservative map. The Selzer poll highlights the reasons I believe she will win. In Iowa 10% of self-identified Republicans are voting for Harris. Republicans have been excited about the early voting numbers but those good numbers are off of 2020 where Trump explicitly told his voters not to vote for early. Also, Selzer believes there are two groups being undercounted in other polls: Young women and elderly women. 

As more than one pundit has put it: An early way to know who is going to win is to look at the gender gap. If Harris wins women more than Trump wins men she will win. Why? More women turn out to vote than men.

Organizing matters. Republicans relied on outside groups funded by Elon Musk to go door knocking. They turned in great numbers! Unfortunately for them, the workers learned how to game the system. They spent the day in the coffee shop pretending to knock on doors. A Republican operative in North Carolina said that he sees Harris canvassers out every day but has yet to see one for Trump. That is worth at least a point or two or three (and it's why I am giving NC to Harris even though polls have it a slight Trump edge).

I think enthusiasm matters. I watched the final speech Kamala gave in Pennsylvania and Donald gave Grand Rapids, Michigan. His crowd was smaller and tired. He was so far off his A game that I almost felt sorry for him. Kamala's was like a rock concert. 

What would an optimistic map look like? Harris wins Georgia and Arizona. 

November 1

I am overwhelmed by the people trying to help me back home. It is very much appreciated and if I knew a way you could help I would gladly accept it. The best way you can help? Let's have a conversation. I do not have international minutes so it's either Google Meet or Zoom. For the conversations I have had, Google has been working better. 

This was not a great week but I know I put in more miles walking than I have any week this year because as the weather has cooled Cujo wants to go and go and go. I am surprisingly calm about the election. I always ask myself, "Would I rather be on my side or theirs?" Let's just say I am nauseously optimistic.

What made the week a bad week is that I have no good news on the matters concerning my residency, passport and employment. Not moving the ball on those issues is distressing.

******

Anniversaries are on my mind. Ten years... Ten years... Ten years ago last week my friend Sanjaya lost his Dad in an accident. Ten years ago we put the farm up for auction. 

1994 and 2004 were also bad years for reasons not worth going into now. 

Not all years that end with a 4 have been bad. In 1984 I turned 16. Growing up on a farm, a driver's license is the ticket to freedom. Being born on September 16 (hours past Iowa's cutoff date for school entry) meant I was one of the older kids in the class of 87. 

Had I been born a day earlier and been in the class of 86 I am certain my life would have been different. Why? The 86 class was the... underachiever class. The class of 87 was the opposite. We were competitive on everything. I definitely fit in better with 87 classmates. 

2006 redux?

I have battled depression a few times in my life. 2005-06 were very dark days for me. I was doing something I loved; teaching, and more importantly, teaching students who very much wanted to learn because they want a decent job. (As opposed to teaching at my alma mater. I love my time at Coe but I was able to have a much bigger impact at Hamilton than I could have had at Coe.)

Unfortunately for me, my direct supervisor Linda jumped ship. I loved working for her. To have a department chair you trust 100% is gold. After that I was adrift working at a place where the woman running the place is/was an insecure person who took out her fears on those who worked for her. When the movie "Bad Bosses" came out it was difficult to watch because I had worked for someone was evil incarnate. When she was finally fired by the parent company literally dozens of former Hamilton/Kaplan employees and students commented on my wall. Because everyone knew she was my nemesis they came to my wall. For me, it was karma.

In 2006 my birthday was on a Saturday. For a Saturday birthday I think you are obligated to do something fun. I was in such a low functioning state that I couldn't put together anything to see/do with anyone for that birthday. 

I do not know if this is a repeat of 2006 but I do know that like 2006 I have not done a good job of keeping in touch with the people who have shown me love and support. 

My sincere hope is that those who care about me will continue to care about me regardless of how I act in the next couple of months. 

2024

I have had several friends reach out in the past few weeks so I hope to summarize the year to answer most questions.

This has not been a good year physically or emotionally. Physically, I developed gout in March making it hard to walk. For almost 2 months it was difficult to walk and for a few days I could not put any weight on right foot. On the positive side, I lost a lot of weight. Hitting a low of 156 pounds (71 kg), I have gained a healthy 10 pounds back. I also pretty much eliminated caffeine and alcohol. (Eliminating alcohol coincided with the onset of gout. Since gout is often caused by alcohol consumption I thought staying off t was a good idea.) In the past few months I've met friends for coffee or beer, so again, not being an absolutist on this.

Emotionally, I have felt isolated. As an extroverted person I need time in and around lots of people. Not having that is not good. 

The bottom line is that I am OK. Not great, but OK. I do need to talk more with friends and recharge my extrovert battery so I am happy to talk via zoom or google meet if anyone has free time. 

Let's talk drugs

It is winter of '77. My brother Mark is a freshman in HS. On his way to school he took some drugs that left him not only tripping but violently so. 

We got a call to come get him. Mom asked Miriam to drive as we loaded up in the station wagon. The principal and another man had to hold Mark as my sister drove us up to the hospital in Vinton. 

I brought up this memory to my sister a few weeks ago. (I hadn't remembered that she was the driver.) What neither of us know to this day: What drugs was he on? How on earth did he access those drugs as a freshman at Benton Community? (To those not familiar, BC is a rural very white, very middle class, no gangs school district.)

That Mark impacted my life is an understatement. As he was 8.5 years older than me I didn't know him well but all who knew both of us compared us as being very alike. (The same principal named above was my 8th grade math teacher and called me Mark pretty much every day.) 

When I was in HS we all knew a few potheads. Beer was absolutely the drug of choice of my generation. Although I've made up for it since then, the one beer I drank in HS was at our senior skip day when my classmate Jeff insisted. 

This brings me to several questions:

What was Mark on that would send him on a bad trip? Did he mix acid with something? What are the drugs that today's teenagers are on? 

When I was teaching at Hamilton I had several BC grads in my classes and was surprised that they said they really never drank alcohol; it was pot... pot... and more pot... but that was 15 years ago so🤷?

Exit polls - US vs. Germany

Exit polls are conducted by a joint operation of many media organizations and the campaigns. 

Late in the afternoon on election day 2004 the results were clear: John Kerry was winning in Florida and enough key battleground states. Campaign manager Bob Shrum greeted Senator Kerry with, "Congratulations Mr. President-elect."

Ooops.

It turned out the exit polls were wrong. While 2004 was close, George Bush secured the popular vote AND the electoral vote. (2004 is the only year Republicans have won the popular vote since 1988. Our messed up Electoral College system is a story for a different post.)

Bottom line: Exit polls, when tallied and adjusted for demographic data, are very accurate but that analysis takes days to process. Nobody in American media is calling an election on the afternoon of election day.

******

Germany held an election in the state of Bradenberg yesterday. Immediately after the polls closed the media announced the ruling party edged the far right party. It was stated with confidence. The numbers initially reported:

SDP: 31%

AfD: 30%

(To confused Americans, in a parliamentary system, winning with 1/3 of the votes is common.) 

There was no doubt to the result. No waiting until all the votes had been counted. Today I read the final tally:

SDP: 30.9%

AfD: 29.2%

So, it ended up being almost a 2 point win. 

My question: How/why was the media so confident after polls closed when the exit polls were so close?

Peter Thiel

This is a follow-up post and mostly written for Lukas. To everyone else, simply understand that you would have never have heard of JD Vance if it weren't for Peter Thiel. Seriously.

******

Elon Musk: I support free speech! Unless it is speech mocking me. 

His buddy Peter Thiel (fellow founder of PayPal, early investor in Facebook) took this to a new level. He supports free speech but when the Gawker outed him as gay he made it his passion in life to bring down the tabloid website... for which he succeeded by bankrolling Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against the site forcing them into bankruptcy. 

He is an early investor in a company that has cataloged all faces and is used by police (ok, I guess) to identify people and by private companies like Madison Square Garden to keep out any unwanted guests (bordering on Minority Report creepy).

It's safe to say, I'm not a fan but I thought I'd give him another chance so I watched this interview from a few days ago. 

There are three main segments.

1. Politics. His libertarian/right-wing politics don't match with mine so it is not surprising that I didn't agree with him much in this section. Still, I expected worse. 
2. AI and tech. There is nothing newsworthy in this section. He compared the AI bubble to the dot-com bubble and observed that the valuation of Nvidia is greater than the total revenue generated by AI. Nothing he said was provocative.
3. Higher education. This was by far the most interesting section. I found myself agreeing with most of his points (shocker). Thiel was repeatedly goaded into saying the government should offer no support to higher ed by the libertarian panel and he didn't take the bait. 

Bottom line: I still don't agree on much but it was worth my time to hear his opinion. 

Pre-debate thoughts

I can't recall ever being so anxious before a debate. Perhaps its because there has never been so much at stake. with numerous polls showing the race a dead heat and 30 percent of the undecided saying this debate is what will help them make up their minds. That's enough to win (or lose) this race.

Historically these debates are overrated. Hillary beat Trump in 2016 debates. Kerry beat Bush in 2004. No impact on the final outcome. Obama lost to Romney in the first debate in 2012 but was able to come back to decisively win the next two debates.

The most famous debate moment of my lifetime was in the VP debates:

Even this debacle didn't have an effect; Bush crushed Dukakis less than a month later.

******

The only debate that has really mattered was in June when Biden revealed his declining faculties. Like many of my fellow Democrats I realized that the motto "riden with Biden" should be changed to "Losing with Grandpa." I was surprised at how many of my fellow Democrats were upset with those of us who said he had to drop out. "You are doing more damage to Biden than the Republicans" is how one friend put it. I replied, "I belong to a political party, not a cult. My goal is to win and we can't win with this guy." 

I even went onto FB and made a post about a beloved quarterback getting injured in the 4th quarter. If the goal is to win the game the backup must be put in the game. Even that was derided by several friends. 

******

Because of the expectations game, Trump simply has to show up and answer every question with "the border" or "inflation" and he will be heralded. So long as he doesn't call her a bitch on live TV he will seem restrained. 

For Harris he goal is to appear authoritative, empathetic, and rational. She is all of those things but... but... there will be an attempt to paint her as shrill, patronizing, etc. A man can state something forcefully and be lauded for it. A woman doing the same can (and often is) regarded as a bitch.

There are more landmines in her path. Fortunately for her, Trump often likes triggering landmines. For that reason, I am cautiously optimistic. 

After a long walk with Cujo it's now 5AM and the show is to begin. 

Finding waste in government

Watch one minute from the most recent Overtime of Real Time with Bill Maher:

(It's supposed to start at 7:10. If it doesn't simply forward the video to that timestamp.) 

First, the ridicule of Al Gore's work is unfair. I was a government contract worker when he pushed through his reforms. They most definitely eliminated paperwork (2-3 hours for just me, a lowly wx station supervisor) and definitely streamlined acquisition. Pre-Gore something as simple as requesting a stapler required insane red tape and approved stapler vendor suppliers. Gore could have accomplished more but the big cuts upset congressmen who liked that spending in their districts. 

Ultimately, Gore's initiative cost me my job. Could the FAA justify human observers for a remote airport like Norfolk, Nebraska? Nope. The stations I managed: Dubuque, Sioux City, and Norfolk all closed.  

And that's a good thing.

*******

Lukas, it's unlikely you follow Rich Lowry (the guy singing Elon's praise). Rich fancies himself a principled conservative who spoke and wrote against Trump as the Editor of the National Review - the premier conservative news/opinion outlet.

He remained principled until Trump came into power. Rich not only became a mouthpiece for Trump he purged all never-Trumpers from the National Review. I had been a loyal reader of the magazine since college but stopped when Rich turned it into a propaganda outlet.

*******

I like the idea of the government examining what it spends money on whetehr or not it can be done more efficiently. As I write in the next post,  Former Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg would be a good guy to do it... or... my political crush Pete Buttigieg. 

Trump's love of Elon Musk

 My friend Lukas thinks Trump's idea of having Elon Musk audit the US government seeking efficiencies is a good idea. He also correctly predicted that I would disagree.

******

I like the idea of a successful good person from the business world coming into politics. Michael Bloomberg was a very successful businessman who ran for mayor of NYC as a Republican. He won in the heavily Democratic city and did such a good job they suspended the two term limit to allow him a third term. (His Presidential bid in 2020 was a giant crash and burn, but I digress.) The point is that I am not opposed to people from with a business background going into politics.

Trump bothered me in that he was not a successful businessman. Had he taken his inheritance and placed into index funds he'd be much wealthier now and not have declared bankruptcy four times.

******

Lukas is right that I do not believe Elon Musk is a good man.  Disowning his 20 year old transgender daughter is his most recent personal failing. But I'll set aside his personal issues.

His purchase of Twitter exemplifies how someone's arrogance/ego can eclipse intelligence/judgment. 

For those who don't follow let me summarize:

He offered to buy Twitter for $54.20 per share. ($4.20 was a joke about marijuana.) The problem? Twitter was not worth anything close to the $44 billion he was paying. When he realized he drastically overpaid he tried to back out. Since he had signed a contract the Twitter board held him to it so he reluctantly agreed. He convinced investment banks to pony up $13 billion in loans. Details here. The tl;dr? Twitter (now X) has seen its revenue decline so much that it is not making enough to even make the interest payments on its debt.

When Musk took over he eliminated 80% of the employees and Twitter was able to keep functioning. Some in Silicon Valley hailed his cost-cutting as visionary and it did start the trend of tech layoffs. While other CEO's like Zuck at Meta (Facebook) cut fat, Musk's cuts were flesh and bone. Sure it cut costs quickly but it resulted in a platform that became a toxic stew that advertisers abandoned.

He fed his seed corn to the livestock. It was great for an initial boost but very destructive in the long run.

A year ago he told advertisers and Disney CEO Bob Iger to go fuck themselves:

I won't go into his odd rightward lurch except to make to two observations:

Tesla, the solar company he founded, and SpaceX all became possible due to massive government subsidies. California leads the way in EV stations thanks to state and federal grants. Because California also taxes capital gains he moved to Texas and is moving his company headquarters from Delaware to Texas because Texas rules will allow him to do anything he wants.

Secondly, Elon has no problem following rules of rightwing governments like India. But when Brazil's leftwing government imposes rules Elon shut it down rather than comply. It will be interesting to see how the EU handles. X/Twitter is not complying with their rules (the safety people were part of the 80% Musk laid off). It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

******

Musk is very anti-union. For many in the business community that's a plus. Given that roughly 30% of the government workforce is unionized there is no reason for them to remain silent when he goes after their jobs first.

******

Bottom line? Elon Musk is not the right person to give advice on finding ways for the US government to save money. His horrible stewardship at X proves that his expertise in some domains does not translate well to social media. 

A few weeks ago Elon decided that the companies that stopped advertising should be sued. His reputable law firm wouldn't file the case so he hired a lower tier law firm. He instructed X CEO in name only Linda Yacarino  to put out this incredibly cringe-worthy video explaining it.  It's worth 2 minutes of your time:

Paragliding in Pokhara

One of my favorite things to do is to go paragliding. To me it's better than skydiving because the ride is like sitting in a lawn chair in the sky.

My friend Vikram is an excellent paragliding pilot. Here he is the first time we went up:

If the weather is good the views are amazing.

To see how good Vikram is as a pilot watch us land. When we land I simply had to stand up. No running, no jumping. 

There is another video out there from a different trip... the thermals were amazing and we went up and up... Vikram, any estimation on how high we were? I know what I remember but I think it has to be wrong. 

The video is only available here on Facebook.

Arrival - Day one

For most of us Nepal is visa on demand. An Afghan friend had to get it in advance while a Pakistani friend on the same trip didn't need any visa. It's $25 for a 15 day visa. Because the government needs hard currency you'll need to pay in dollars/euros. 

Before leaving the airport you'll see a booth where you can prepay $7-8 for a taxi. Take it. You do not want your first experience bargaining for a taxi to save a dollar or two. Also, just before exiting there are two shops selling SIM cards. Although wifi is everywhere, I definitely recommend spending the $25 for a visit SIM. Data speeds/connection can vary depending on location in the mountainous country but it's usually quite good.

Where to stay?

Thamel is the touristy area and it is the right place to stay. Nicer hotels are located outside of Thamel but if you stay at one of those you will be taking a taxi or walking to Thamel so it just makes more sense to book in Thamel. They've made the heart of Thamel car-free so the taxi will drop you off and you'll have to take your bags the 3-4 blocks to whatever hotel you book.

Thamel is very walkable, even better without cars. Catering to tourists the "popular" restaurants serve Italian, Chinese, etc. I recommend a place that serves the staple food of Nepal: Dal bhat (curry with rice). 

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g293890-d13078170-Reviews-Thakali_Bhanchha_Ghar-Kathmandu_Kathmandu_Valley_Bagmati_Zone_Central_Region.html

Whatever hotel you book will likely offer breakfast. Skip that and go to Northfield cafe. Their Nepali omelet is amazing. https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g293890-d1156591-Reviews-Northfield_Cafe-Kathmandu_Kathmandu_Valley_Bagmati_Zone_Central_Region.html

******

Taxis are all negotiated price. Anywhere you are going within the city is $4 - $8. I don't think I've ever paid more than $8 and that was for going to Patan (neighboring city). 

Since I know you have the Lonely Planet I won't bore you with details of the temples; you can read it all from the guide. Here are a few tips:

Visit Pashupatinath (the Hindu temple) in the morning. Why? You can witness the funeral pyres. Family members ceremonially wash the body before cremating on the bank of the river. It is possible to watch this from a respectable distance on the other side of the river bank. On every trip I want punch tourists who have their cameras out taking pictures of the grieving families right next to them.

Both Buddhist temples mentioned in the guide are worth the visit. 

Boudhanath is close to Pashupatinath and logical to visit next. 

My favorite is Swayambunath. The taxi will try to drop you off at the base of the temple. Be sure to direct him to take you around to the top. It's more fun to walk down. This temple is loaded with monkeys. This is why I recommended bringing bags of peanuts. You will be very popular!

Cap off the day visiting the bar at the top of the World Trade Center. It has a nice view where you can enjoy some momos and beer. 

*****

The Durbar Square is the other major landmark recommended in the guide. Sadly much of this nearly thousand year old structure was destroyed in the 2015 earthquake. It's still worth a visit if you have time but not essential.

*****

The three major temples is very doable in the first full day in Kathmandu. That means the next day is going wherever you want to go next. 

For me the decision is between safari - washing/riding elephants in Chitwan - or Pohara where you can hike, paraglide, zip line and wake up to the most amazing view of the Himalayas. Since I've spoken with you I know you are considering Lukla. 

Lee is more adventurous than me; Lukla makes every list of Top 10 most dangerous airports. Although it's not my cup of tea I look forward to seeing his pics if he does. 

Nepal - Before you go

 My friends Lee & Abby are headed to Nepal next week and he asked for tips. Here are some thoughts in planning:

• Take US dollars. There are money exchange places all over the tourist areas. When you arrive exchange $50-100 at the airport. It's the only airport in the world where the rate at the airport is fair. (There are better rates available outside of the airport so don't exchange more.) Other currencies like the euro give 2-3% less on the exchange rate.
• Pack/wear hiking type clothes and shoes. Do not concern yourself with formal dress wear. 
• Bring big bags of peanuts in the shell. Feeding wild monkeys is a lot of fun!
• Be sure to pack bug spray, sun screen and toiletries you prefer. All are available in Nepal but not likely you'll get the brands you are used to using.
• Nepal uses the European 2-prong electrical plug.
• Load shedding (hours during the day where the electricity is offline) used to be a major issue. That's mostly been resolved but it is still wise to bring an external battery to charge your phone in a pinch.

Conventions *sometimes* matter

In the summer of 1992 Bill Clinton was running in 3rd place behind Ross Perot and George H. W. Bush.

Bill charmed the crowd and the theme of "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow" catapulted the ticket from last to first. Perot flaked out/dropped out and Clinton held onto the lead to win comfortably in November.

90 years...

 Mom was born on August 11, 1934. As I said in her eulogy below, she grew up in an abusive house with alcoholic parents. Dad literally rescued her. 

The only way to understand this post is to first watch the eulogy.

https://youtu.be/uEgwhwGnPZ4?si=Vz0BW-2wfSYrejUr

Dad's death rocked my siblings whereas I was pretty much at peace with it within 24 hours of his death. For Dad I received the news at 7 PM UAE time. I was fortunately with my friends (we had come to call each other the "Al Ain Support Group") and they took care of me, helped me pack and by midnight I was in the Abu Dhabi airport ready to fly to America. Because I couldn't book all the way to Iowa my incredible friend Tony dropped everything to drive 5 hours to pick me up. By the time I landed in Chicago I was OK with Dad's death. Dad had always said there were things worse than death. As Dad was declining very quickly with Alzheimer's I was at peace that he died before he lost everything that was his mind.

Mom's death, however, was way more complicated for me. Mom was very smart and had an unusually sharp cutting humor. I definitely inherited that from her and undoubtedly lost friends because of it.

She also suffered with mental illness. In 2000 she was diagnosed as "Paranoid Schizophrenic." (Apparently they've dropped the term paranoid in recent years.) Something I couldn't put in the eulogy is describing what it was like to be in a hospital ready to sign papers with Dad to have her involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward. At the last minute Mom chose to admit herself because they explained to her that if she goes in voluntarily she can leave at any time. 

Mom went in and put on a show. One of the nurses joked it was Oscar-worthy. After 4 days/nights in the facility she asked to leave and as she entered voluntarily they couldn't stop her and Mom was released. Less than 24 hours later Mom reverted to... it's hard to describe what she was like. Dad teared up and went silent. I went off on her. "You do not want to get better. You prefer to believe the world is against you. You believe the voices in your head over the people who love you most. I can't take this anymore..." (I could have written this in all caps with exclamation points.)

Mom agreed to go on to a drug called Resperidone and worked pretty well. Mom was a good patient in that she religiously took her meds but this was the one med that she would occasionally try to go awhile taking a half dose. Over the next decade I could see it and I'd say, "Mom, go back to the full dose."

I think all children (or GenX kids at least) have a complicated relationship with their parents. All I can say is that I thought doing a eulogy for Mom would be easy. It wasn't. 

Why Trump questions Kamala Harris' being Black

It's 2008. Obama shocked the political world by crushing Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in the Iowa Caucus. Hillary rebounded with a moment where she proved she was human and scored a stunning comeback to win New Hampshire.

Now all eyes are on South Carolina. It's the first state in the process that with a significant Black population - a key constituent of the Democratic Party. The Clintons have traditionally fared very well in the community. 

In the run-up to the primary some groups started rumors against Obama that he's not really Black. Unlike most African-Americans he did not descend from slaves. He went to Harvard. He may claim he's Black but he's not really Black.

The Black community didn't see it that way. They basically saw a brother able to win over lily-white Iowa and they realized just maybe America was ready for a Black man to be President. Obama won South Carolina by almost 30 points.

After he became the nominee the same shadowy forces started that talk again in the general election. McCain didn't need to win the Black vote. He simply needed to suppress the Black vote - have enough of them discouraged to not show up.

I must restate: The people doing this were not affiliated with Clinton nor McCain. 

At some point Obama felt the need to respond, which I unfortunately can't find on Youtube. In essence he said:

"When I hail a cab the driver doesn't say, "Oh, he doesn't have slaves in his ancestry so I will pick him up. He sees a Black man."

And with that the foolishness ended.

*****

Fast forward to Trump claiming he is not sure Kamala Harris is Black. Again, he's not trying to win over Black voters. He is following the pattern of what was attempted against Obama. Make Kamala the "other". He knows a record African American turnout puts Georgia and North Carolina into play. (The Trump campaign started playing ads in North Carolina this week.)

The ploy didn't work in 2008 and it won't work in 2024. This was a stunning sign of weakness of weakness on behalf of Donald Trump.

Not on Ozempic!

 In my quest to regain my health I am taking Cujo for long walks. Unbelievably, I have somehow lost a few more pounds. 152 pounds (69 kilograms) is... shrug. I have no goal to lose more weight. I am eating healthy and had no alcohol in weeks, perhaps months(?). I am back on caffeine a little: Kiley left great coffee pods that I use sparingly. In other words, I allow the coffee to brew slowly in a large glass of water, refrigerate it and drink half of it the next 2 days. Since I've been off caffeine so long that little amount gives me quite a boost. 

I have been meaning to write a post about Ozempic (the new wonder weight-loss drug)... I really have to get that done.  

Your Daily Chuckle

As noted below, Dakota served as Miss Iowa and at the Miss Teen USA competition she roomed with Miss South Carolina. The two became good friends. 

Take a minute and watch this:

The VP selection

I am enjoying the compressed VP sweepstakes. The only candidate who excites me is Pete Buttigieg. If you are limited on time simply watch the first minute of his appearance on Monday's The Daily Show.

Obviously, I am not his only fan. His greatest strength is that he is unflappable in interviews. He went on Fox on Sunday and more than held his own in hostile territory. 

In 2020 Pete's husband Chasten and Kamala's husband Doug became close friends. (Spouses have nothing to do backstage at the cattle-call events.) 

So will Pete be selected? My Magic 8-ball says "Not Likely." He has everything going for him except that he's gay. Is there a person who would be willing to vote for a Black-Indian woman but wouldn't because she has a gay running mate? Probably not. Homophobes and bigots run in the same circles so choosing Pete is not as risky as it may seem. 

Who will she pick?

Arizona Senator and former astronaut Mark Kelly would be the most logical choice. He is straight out of central casting and, as a border state senator, he has a position on border crossings that could help the ticket on their weakest issue. The problem? He's boring. I've watched several interviews and speeches. He is every bit as exciting as Tim Kaine. Who is Tim Kaine? He's the guy Hillary chose in 2016 who nobody remembers.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz introduced us to the term weird to describe Republicans. I like the way he comes across. 

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is the front runner AND the Harris campaign has announced that they will introduce the VP selection in Philadelphia - causing some to speculate that Shapiro is the choice. If there is anyone I am rooting against it's Shapiro. He hurts the ticket on the Palestine issue. (If Democrats lose Michigan this year it will be because of this issue.)