No doubt about it, when the election results come in, supporters of whomever looses will be furious and the accusations of voter fraud and cheating will abound. If it's close, the supreme court will likely be called in and that will raise the stakes and emotions even higher.
Should Hillary win, she will not very likely get majorities in either the house or senate. There is a possibility that she will have learned from her husband that success can be achieved by working with the opposition. It's not clear if republicans are willing to reciprocate. The elephant in the room is the looming replacement of Justice Scalia. The court has been a tit-for-tat replacement for years and only on the rarest of occasions has a seat changed from conservative or liberal or vice versa. There are some old and frail folks on the court on both sides and the next president will shape the politics of the court for a generation - perhaps longer if appointments go to younger judges. The elements of her campaign designed to reel in the left - like free college, raising taxes on the rich will not happen because she will not get the legislative mandate.
Should Trump win, no one really knows what to expect. It's hard to tell if he is pandering to the right or if he really plans to enact plans like building the wall. I expect he will focus on domestic issues and stay away from international affairs, but if something big happens, all bets are off. If he wins and keeps the congress, he should have an easy time with justices - and the right will be happy. Every step he takes to dismantle Obamacare will be meet with visceral opposition, but if it does not get funded, it will die. Since so much of the move to green energy has been by administrative decree and rule making - side stepping congress, it will be interesting to see where Trumps efforts to put the breaks on go. Cutting subsidies for electric cars, cutting regulations that closed coal fired power plants. and hundreds of EPA rules that affect a variety of business. If he does this right, he will succeed in growing the economy, but since he does not have the media on his side, he will have a rolling fight every step of the way.
We should be prepared for a few very rough November - January. Maybe a few prayers for heavy snow and bitter cold will soften the blow.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
How about some rules for debates
Post debate pain is sinking in. The media insists that we have a winner and a loser. But the measures are arbitrary and no one knows what scoring rules to use. Actually, the real winner is likely to be the one that best matches your political perspective anyway.
So I propose the following rules and measurement tools.
1 - Timers are on but there is a filibuster twist. Excluding the time the moderator(s) take to ask questions, candidates are suggested to take no more than 2 minutes to answer. Regardless, they can see the timer and they can see the differential timer between the aggregates of the participants. As the debate comes to a close - lets say one candidate used 8 minutes more time than the other - so when the debate reaches 8 minutes (or whatever that differential is) to go, the other candidate gets all that time with no rebuttal for the other one. This will serve to keep answers short and sweet. If the differential is less than 2 minutes - no award.
2 - Scoring: For each question where the participants actually answer the question - 1 point. Where they don't answer but just criticize the opponent, -1 point.
For each rebuttal where they address a specific accusation or counter point - 1 point. Where a rebuttal is used to go off topic or criticize an opponent -1 point. NOTE: If they satisfy the part where they earn the point and use remaining time to go off topic or criticize - then no points are deducted.
If they call an opponent a name or make a personal attack - 2 point deduction, So if candidate A calls B an idiot - deduct 2. If B suggests A is a bigot, racist, homophob or is fat - deduct 5 points. This is not that same as saying they are wrong on policy - but is a measure of civility in the debate.
If a candidate interrupts another, - 1 point deduction. This can be somewhat arbitrary in application - but should be used only if the candidate being interrupted is stopped from speaking or forced to change the direction of reply. So if one is speaking and the other mutters "wrong" - and the first continues to speak - this may be rude but is not a deduction under these rules. If they say "wrong" the the first stops and replys in any way - the other is charged 1 point. The rude factor is addressed below.
Moderator bias adjustment. Moderators always have a political perspective. If a moderator displays bias by a) fact checking (even if correct) b) asking questions in a attacking manner etc, then a 5 point bonus to the candidate they are against. Call this the Candy Crowley or Lester Holt rule.
Finally, a demeanor bonus of 3 points is applied to each participant who can make it through the whole debate without eye-rolls, sighs, yawns, checking watches, or displayiIng other annoying non-verbals. NOTE: This is nearly impossible to achieve on either side.
There - take this scoring to your next debate and see who really wins. The alternate version says to add 100 points at the end to the one you supported going in.
So I propose the following rules and measurement tools.
1 - Timers are on but there is a filibuster twist. Excluding the time the moderator(s) take to ask questions, candidates are suggested to take no more than 2 minutes to answer. Regardless, they can see the timer and they can see the differential timer between the aggregates of the participants. As the debate comes to a close - lets say one candidate used 8 minutes more time than the other - so when the debate reaches 8 minutes (or whatever that differential is) to go, the other candidate gets all that time with no rebuttal for the other one. This will serve to keep answers short and sweet. If the differential is less than 2 minutes - no award.
2 - Scoring: For each question where the participants actually answer the question - 1 point. Where they don't answer but just criticize the opponent, -1 point.
For each rebuttal where they address a specific accusation or counter point - 1 point. Where a rebuttal is used to go off topic or criticize an opponent -1 point. NOTE: If they satisfy the part where they earn the point and use remaining time to go off topic or criticize - then no points are deducted.
If they call an opponent a name or make a personal attack - 2 point deduction, So if candidate A calls B an idiot - deduct 2. If B suggests A is a bigot, racist, homophob or is fat - deduct 5 points. This is not that same as saying they are wrong on policy - but is a measure of civility in the debate.
If a candidate interrupts another, - 1 point deduction. This can be somewhat arbitrary in application - but should be used only if the candidate being interrupted is stopped from speaking or forced to change the direction of reply. So if one is speaking and the other mutters "wrong" - and the first continues to speak - this may be rude but is not a deduction under these rules. If they say "wrong" the the first stops and replys in any way - the other is charged 1 point. The rude factor is addressed below.
Moderator bias adjustment. Moderators always have a political perspective. If a moderator displays bias by a) fact checking (even if correct) b) asking questions in a attacking manner etc, then a 5 point bonus to the candidate they are against. Call this the Candy Crowley or Lester Holt rule.
Finally, a demeanor bonus of 3 points is applied to each participant who can make it through the whole debate without eye-rolls, sighs, yawns, checking watches, or displayiIng other annoying non-verbals. NOTE: This is nearly impossible to achieve on either side.
There - take this scoring to your next debate and see who really wins. The alternate version says to add 100 points at the end to the one you supported going in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)