Labor-law violations and the kind of economic climate we encourage [The Pump Handle]

Last week, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas temporarily enjoined provisions of the Obama Administration’s Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executiv Order (EO 13673), which would require companies bidding on federal contracts worth more than $500,000 to report whether or not they have been cited in the last three years for labor law violations. (In their initial bid, they simply have to check a box to say whether or not this is the case.) This temporary stay will be in effect until the court decides the case brought by Associated Builders and Contractors of Southeast Texas et al., which claimed harm to companies that bid on federal contracts.

As Celeste noted last year when Republican Members of Congress complained about this executive order, nothing in the EO or the related guidance document says firms that disclose such citations will be ineligible to bid on federal contracts. Those that move on to the pre-award stage (i.e., are under consideration for the contract) will have to provide additional information, she explained:

If a company disclosed that they have been cited in the last three years for a labor law violation, they would be asked to provide additional information about the violation(s). The additional information would be items such as a copy of the citation, the docket number, the decision that was rendered, and how they corrected the violation. The proposed guidance acknowledges that a company may have contested or challenged a violation. It says: the Administration understands that a company “may raise good-faith disputes” about labor law violations. A firm could submit such information to the government’s contracting official about their rationale for challenging the violation and status of the contest.

The executive order came in response to an existing problem, wrote Debbie Berkowitz of the National Employment Law Project:

Incredibly, under our broken federal procurement system, the government regularly awards contracts to companies with serious violations of worker protection laws. These include a lack of safety protections in poultry processing plants or chemical plants resulting in amputations and worker fatalities; wage theft where companies fail to pay legally required minimum wage rates or overtime; and sexual harassment and employment discrimination.

Even companies with the most egregious violations continue to receive federal contracts. One such company, where four workers were killed in a horrific incident, was recently blasted by officials at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, who said the workers “would be alive today had their employer taken steps to protect them.”

According to a 2013 U.S. Senate report, almost 30 percent of companies charged with the highest penalties for federal labor law violations are also federal contractors.

An assumption undergirding many US regulations and procurement policies is that we want to support small businesses. Companies are exempt from some requirements or enforcement activities if they’re small, presumably because the potential harm their employees is outweighed by the value to the economy from allowing people to form small businesses. We accept a certain amount of inefficiency in federal procurement – for instance, requiring National Institutes of Health grantees to get multiple bids for new lab equipment rather than just going back to the same company they’ve used before – because we want to give less-established businesses a chance to compete and flourish.

If we’re going to say federal regulations and procurement policies should promote a climate that allows entrepreneurs to build small businesses, I’d like to see us extend that philosophy to allowing businesses with safe workplaces to flourish. There’s an economic as well as ethical rationale for this: occupational injuries and illnesses cost the US billions each year.

The Fifth Circuit may well find that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order violates existing laws. (Given that District Judge Martha Cone’s injunction contains the statement “it is settled in this circuit that government contractors are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other citizens,” a judgment against the EO seems likely.) If that’s the outcome, I hope Congress will pass new laws that give as much deference to businesses that respect worker health and safety as we currently give to small businesses.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2fotFE4

Last week, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas temporarily enjoined provisions of the Obama Administration’s Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executiv Order (EO 13673), which would require companies bidding on federal contracts worth more than $500,000 to report whether or not they have been cited in the last three years for labor law violations. (In their initial bid, they simply have to check a box to say whether or not this is the case.) This temporary stay will be in effect until the court decides the case brought by Associated Builders and Contractors of Southeast Texas et al., which claimed harm to companies that bid on federal contracts.

As Celeste noted last year when Republican Members of Congress complained about this executive order, nothing in the EO or the related guidance document says firms that disclose such citations will be ineligible to bid on federal contracts. Those that move on to the pre-award stage (i.e., are under consideration for the contract) will have to provide additional information, she explained:

If a company disclosed that they have been cited in the last three years for a labor law violation, they would be asked to provide additional information about the violation(s). The additional information would be items such as a copy of the citation, the docket number, the decision that was rendered, and how they corrected the violation. The proposed guidance acknowledges that a company may have contested or challenged a violation. It says: the Administration understands that a company “may raise good-faith disputes” about labor law violations. A firm could submit such information to the government’s contracting official about their rationale for challenging the violation and status of the contest.

The executive order came in response to an existing problem, wrote Debbie Berkowitz of the National Employment Law Project:

Incredibly, under our broken federal procurement system, the government regularly awards contracts to companies with serious violations of worker protection laws. These include a lack of safety protections in poultry processing plants or chemical plants resulting in amputations and worker fatalities; wage theft where companies fail to pay legally required minimum wage rates or overtime; and sexual harassment and employment discrimination.

Even companies with the most egregious violations continue to receive federal contracts. One such company, where four workers were killed in a horrific incident, was recently blasted by officials at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, who said the workers “would be alive today had their employer taken steps to protect them.”

According to a 2013 U.S. Senate report, almost 30 percent of companies charged with the highest penalties for federal labor law violations are also federal contractors.

An assumption undergirding many US regulations and procurement policies is that we want to support small businesses. Companies are exempt from some requirements or enforcement activities if they’re small, presumably because the potential harm their employees is outweighed by the value to the economy from allowing people to form small businesses. We accept a certain amount of inefficiency in federal procurement – for instance, requiring National Institutes of Health grantees to get multiple bids for new lab equipment rather than just going back to the same company they’ve used before – because we want to give less-established businesses a chance to compete and flourish.

If we’re going to say federal regulations and procurement policies should promote a climate that allows entrepreneurs to build small businesses, I’d like to see us extend that philosophy to allowing businesses with safe workplaces to flourish. There’s an economic as well as ethical rationale for this: occupational injuries and illnesses cost the US billions each year.

The Fifth Circuit may well find that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order violates existing laws. (Given that District Judge Martha Cone’s injunction contains the statement “it is settled in this circuit that government contractors are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other citizens,” a judgment against the EO seems likely.) If that’s the outcome, I hope Congress will pass new laws that give as much deference to businesses that respect worker health and safety as we currently give to small businesses.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2fotFE4

We Don’t Need a ‘War’ on Climate Change, We Need a Revolution? [Stoat]

Way to go, lefties. Via ATTP on Twitter I find Eric S. Godoy and Aaron Jaffe in the Op-Eds of the NYT¹. I think it popped up because of Marx thought of the human body as part of the natural world and called nature an extension of our bodies. Following Marx, contemporary theorists like… and if you’re trying to alienate the right wing – and indeed, almost everyone – invoking Marx is an excellent way of doing it².

The ostensible theme of the article – that it might be better to think of climate change in terms of “revolution” rather than “war” – I find uninteresting. The bit worth commenting on is perhaps best summed up by their summing up:

In this light, Exxon and its climate science obfuscation is not so much an enemy as a paradigmatic symptom of the worst kinds of behavior generated by profit-driven systems. The enemy is the violence perpetrated by racial, gendered, political, juridical and existing economic metabolisms with nature. Their exploitative organizations would remain unconcerned with climate justice even if the nation were mobilized to mass produce solar panels and wind turbines. In other words, Climate change demands not only a race to develop and deploy new energy technologies, but a revolution to democratize all forms of power — fossil fuels, wind, solar, but most important, economic and political power.

So – perhaps via Climate science identifies the problem – it can’t tell us what to do in response? – there are two⁴ (have I said this before? It is sounding awfully familiar in my mind. Perhaps I’ve just thought it a lot) contrasting approaches to “solving” Global Warming:

1. Revolution! As exemplified near-perfectly by the above. Capitalists are evil but not only that, our entire society is riddled with violence perpetrated by just about anyone you can think of, except for the Marxists of course. Any solution that leaves people or organisations “unconcerned with climate justice” in unacceptable, regardless of it’s actual effects on climate.
2. Just slap on a carbon tax.

Approach number 1 appeals very strongly to all those people who, for whatever reason, don’t like our society anyway. Or who like it, but can see ways that it could be so much better if they and their nice friends were in charge. As a way of actually solving GW it is a disaster area of course, since it will alienate large numbers of people you need to convinced. If you’re of the Marxist persuasion this is no great problem: you’re writing from an ivory tower, it is all more of an intellectual exercise in speculative world-building, and your life has no real problems to solve anyway other than finding outlets for your wurblings. Plus, of course, it is “your sort” of solution. people like solutions that are within their domain of expertise. Pols like solutions that involve negotiating and talking. Teachers in the department of social science and cultural studies like solutions that involve interesting social and cultural change. None of these people have much of a clue about economics, so the last thing they want is a solution mediated by expertise other than their own, that they don’t really understand, and which if adopted would diminish their ability to write Op-Eds in the NYT.

Approach number 2, alas, appeals to all too few people. Those on the left can’t quite bring themselves to abandon option 1, and those on the right are so busy being riled by people pushing option 1 that they have the perfect excuse not to settle down quietly and think about option 2.

I find I’ve written a rather more cynical and bleak article than I intended.

Notes

1. And I quote: Eric S. Godoy teaches in the department of social science and cultural studies at the Pratt Institute. Aaron Jaffe is an assistant professor of philosophy and liberal arts at The Juilliard School. This is not promising.

2. Ooooh, even better: “Perhaps, as some have suggested, “revolution” is the better path.” And the link is to http://ift.tt/2fou9dq. I am, BTW, largely ignorant of Marx – and intend to stay that way, please don’t bother to try to “educate” me – so I’m prepared to believe he might have said some sensible things. But if you find yourself tempted to say that, you’ve missed the point.

3. I think the stuff about “the poor” is confused, too. “…refers to the world’s poor, who have contributed only a small amount of the total greenhouse gases while richer countries produce higher carbon emissions… solar panels won’t purify Flint’s lead-ridden water or lower asthma rates in the Bronx”. But essentially no-one in the USA is amongst the poor, as measured by world-grade poverty. The two need to be clearly distinguished.

4. Or these are two ends of the spectrum. Or something. Don’t push me too hard on this one.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2f6G63t

Way to go, lefties. Via ATTP on Twitter I find Eric S. Godoy and Aaron Jaffe in the Op-Eds of the NYT¹. I think it popped up because of Marx thought of the human body as part of the natural world and called nature an extension of our bodies. Following Marx, contemporary theorists like… and if you’re trying to alienate the right wing – and indeed, almost everyone – invoking Marx is an excellent way of doing it².

The ostensible theme of the article – that it might be better to think of climate change in terms of “revolution” rather than “war” – I find uninteresting. The bit worth commenting on is perhaps best summed up by their summing up:

In this light, Exxon and its climate science obfuscation is not so much an enemy as a paradigmatic symptom of the worst kinds of behavior generated by profit-driven systems. The enemy is the violence perpetrated by racial, gendered, political, juridical and existing economic metabolisms with nature. Their exploitative organizations would remain unconcerned with climate justice even if the nation were mobilized to mass produce solar panels and wind turbines. In other words, Climate change demands not only a race to develop and deploy new energy technologies, but a revolution to democratize all forms of power — fossil fuels, wind, solar, but most important, economic and political power.

So – perhaps via Climate science identifies the problem – it can’t tell us what to do in response? – there are two⁴ (have I said this before? It is sounding awfully familiar in my mind. Perhaps I’ve just thought it a lot) contrasting approaches to “solving” Global Warming:

1. Revolution! As exemplified near-perfectly by the above. Capitalists are evil but not only that, our entire society is riddled with violence perpetrated by just about anyone you can think of, except for the Marxists of course. Any solution that leaves people or organisations “unconcerned with climate justice” in unacceptable, regardless of it’s actual effects on climate.
2. Just slap on a carbon tax.

Approach number 1 appeals very strongly to all those people who, for whatever reason, don’t like our society anyway. Or who like it, but can see ways that it could be so much better if they and their nice friends were in charge. As a way of actually solving GW it is a disaster area of course, since it will alienate large numbers of people you need to convinced. If you’re of the Marxist persuasion this is no great problem: you’re writing from an ivory tower, it is all more of an intellectual exercise in speculative world-building, and your life has no real problems to solve anyway other than finding outlets for your wurblings. Plus, of course, it is “your sort” of solution. people like solutions that are within their domain of expertise. Pols like solutions that involve negotiating and talking. Teachers in the department of social science and cultural studies like solutions that involve interesting social and cultural change. None of these people have much of a clue about economics, so the last thing they want is a solution mediated by expertise other than their own, that they don’t really understand, and which if adopted would diminish their ability to write Op-Eds in the NYT.

Approach number 2, alas, appeals to all too few people. Those on the left can’t quite bring themselves to abandon option 1, and those on the right are so busy being riled by people pushing option 1 that they have the perfect excuse not to settle down quietly and think about option 2.

I find I’ve written a rather more cynical and bleak article than I intended.

Notes

1. And I quote: Eric S. Godoy teaches in the department of social science and cultural studies at the Pratt Institute. Aaron Jaffe is an assistant professor of philosophy and liberal arts at The Juilliard School. This is not promising.

2. Ooooh, even better: “Perhaps, as some have suggested, “revolution” is the better path.” And the link is to http://ift.tt/2fou9dq. I am, BTW, largely ignorant of Marx – and intend to stay that way, please don’t bother to try to “educate” me – so I’m prepared to believe he might have said some sensible things. But if you find yourself tempted to say that, you’ve missed the point.

3. I think the stuff about “the poor” is confused, too. “…refers to the world’s poor, who have contributed only a small amount of the total greenhouse gases while richer countries produce higher carbon emissions… solar panels won’t purify Flint’s lead-ridden water or lower asthma rates in the Bronx”. But essentially no-one in the USA is amongst the poor, as measured by world-grade poverty. The two need to be clearly distinguished.

4. Or these are two ends of the spectrum. Or something. Don’t push me too hard on this one.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2f6G63t

Goblin Spiders [Life Lines]

Happy Halloween!
The day just would not be complete without goblin spiders. Check out this neat YouTube video I came across describing species found in Ecuador.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2efYY1o

Happy Halloween!
The day just would not be complete without goblin spiders. Check out this neat YouTube video I came across describing species found in Ecuador.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2efYY1o

Scientists of the Corn

By Susanna Pearlstein

Wandering through a corn field, you might find stillness, quiet, order, perhaps a tassel-lined sky. At our corn field at the Oregon State University Vegetable Research Farm, you will find a hydraulic drill and a team of EPA staff from Oklahoma’s Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division.  The crew brought two hydraulic drills in a semi-truck to Corvallis, Oregon, to bring to life a study that had taken a year to plan.

Aerial view of the completed field installs. Photo by Keith Sawicz

I met them at the corn field, armed with pastries and the excitement of knowing that all the planning, site searching, relationship building, corn planting, and a host of other activities had been successful. The results of the study will help us understand how nitrate moves into groundwater.

 

The team installing a sensor array. Photo: Steve Hutchins

Farmers apply nitrogen to crops like corn to help them grow and supplement the nutrients that they take out of the soil. It is essential to monitor water quality related to farming practices because any extra nitrogen that is not used by the plant may move down through the soil as nitrate. Nitrate is found in some local drinking water supplies, and it can be particularly harmful to infants.

 

The study will help explain how we can protect drinking water by planting crops between corn rows to keep the nitrogen in the field. The crop is left behind after corn harvest as a cover crop rather than leaving the fields bare. Scientists advocate interplanting cover crops to help keep nitrate from leaching into groundwater and surface waters across the U.S

Steve and Susanna enthusiastically display the inner workings of the sensor dataloggers. Photo by Bart Faulkner.

Preparing the site meant that the crew from EPA spent the first part of September patiently guiding the drills through the soil to several depths within the vadose zone, the space between the soil surface and the top of the groundwater. Under the expert eye of the licensed driller James “JR” Cantrall of Northern Lights Drilling, the drill team installed these devices and drilled groundwater wells. In addition to the groundwater wells, which sample below the vadose zone in the actual groundwater, scientists installed lysimeters, soil moisture probes, and tensiometers within the vadose zone. Lysimeters are porous cups that allow water samples to be taken under vacuum as the water infiltrates through the soil. Soil moisture probes will monitor how much moisture is in the soil, and tensiometer sensors will show the soil’s capacity to take up additional moisture. All together, these devices allow for critical evaluation of changes in water quality as it moves through the soil and into groundwater.

With the site up and running now EPA will monitor the soil and groundwater biweekly for the next four years as part of EPA’s Safe and Sustainable Water Resources research program. Please visit our corn field, either in person or by watching for our updates and publications. We’re looking forward to sharing the story these data will tell!

About the Author: Susanna Pearlstein is an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Postdoctoral Researcher based at the U.S. EPA in Corvallis, OR. She works with Jana Compton and co-leads the Partnership to Improve Nutrient Efficiency, a multi-stakeholder effort in the southern Willamette Valley.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2f5F7B1

By Susanna Pearlstein

Wandering through a corn field, you might find stillness, quiet, order, perhaps a tassel-lined sky. At our corn field at the Oregon State University Vegetable Research Farm, you will find a hydraulic drill and a team of EPA staff from Oklahoma’s Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division.  The crew brought two hydraulic drills in a semi-truck to Corvallis, Oregon, to bring to life a study that had taken a year to plan.

Aerial view of the completed field installs. Photo by Keith Sawicz

I met them at the corn field, armed with pastries and the excitement of knowing that all the planning, site searching, relationship building, corn planting, and a host of other activities had been successful. The results of the study will help us understand how nitrate moves into groundwater.

 

The team installing a sensor array. Photo: Steve Hutchins

Farmers apply nitrogen to crops like corn to help them grow and supplement the nutrients that they take out of the soil. It is essential to monitor water quality related to farming practices because any extra nitrogen that is not used by the plant may move down through the soil as nitrate. Nitrate is found in some local drinking water supplies, and it can be particularly harmful to infants.

 

The study will help explain how we can protect drinking water by planting crops between corn rows to keep the nitrogen in the field. The crop is left behind after corn harvest as a cover crop rather than leaving the fields bare. Scientists advocate interplanting cover crops to help keep nitrate from leaching into groundwater and surface waters across the U.S

Steve and Susanna enthusiastically display the inner workings of the sensor dataloggers. Photo by Bart Faulkner.

Preparing the site meant that the crew from EPA spent the first part of September patiently guiding the drills through the soil to several depths within the vadose zone, the space between the soil surface and the top of the groundwater. Under the expert eye of the licensed driller James “JR” Cantrall of Northern Lights Drilling, the drill team installed these devices and drilled groundwater wells. In addition to the groundwater wells, which sample below the vadose zone in the actual groundwater, scientists installed lysimeters, soil moisture probes, and tensiometers within the vadose zone. Lysimeters are porous cups that allow water samples to be taken under vacuum as the water infiltrates through the soil. Soil moisture probes will monitor how much moisture is in the soil, and tensiometer sensors will show the soil’s capacity to take up additional moisture. All together, these devices allow for critical evaluation of changes in water quality as it moves through the soil and into groundwater.

With the site up and running now EPA will monitor the soil and groundwater biweekly for the next four years as part of EPA’s Safe and Sustainable Water Resources research program. Please visit our corn field, either in person or by watching for our updates and publications. We’re looking forward to sharing the story these data will tell!

About the Author: Susanna Pearlstein is an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Postdoctoral Researcher based at the U.S. EPA in Corvallis, OR. She works with Jana Compton and co-leads the Partnership to Improve Nutrient Efficiency, a multi-stakeholder effort in the southern Willamette Valley.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2f5F7B1

Saturn’s hexagon brings new, colorful mysteries (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“Cassini is different — it’s a mission of enormous scope and is being conducted in grand style. It is much more sophisticated than Voyager, … I can’t say it’s got that flavor of romance, though. Voyager was very romantic. Cassini is spectacular.” -Carolyn Porco

It was a big enough mystery when Saturn’s hexagon was first discovered by going back to archival Voyager data, and then confirmed by Cassini. Over the past 36 years, Saturn’s hexagon has not only persisted, it’s remained completely unchanged in size, extent and speed over that time. An artifact of fluid dynamics and the wind speeds at the northern latitudes, the hexagon is a quasi-stable structure that will likely outlive us all.

Cassini’s true-color view of the north pole before the color change occurred. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute.

But the color of Saturn’s hexagon has changed over time, and not even over very long timescales. Since the north pole came back into sunlight in 2009, it was observed to be blue in color. But from 2012 to 2016, it gradually yellowed, having now achieved a color almost in sync with the rest of the planet. As solstice approaches next year, this effect should only intensify.

As Saturn approaches solstice in its orbit, the yellows are expected to intensify, but the hexagon should remain unchanged in structure. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute.

Find out — and see — why on this edition of Mostly Mute Monday!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2e5npuV

“Cassini is different — it’s a mission of enormous scope and is being conducted in grand style. It is much more sophisticated than Voyager, … I can’t say it’s got that flavor of romance, though. Voyager was very romantic. Cassini is spectacular.” -Carolyn Porco

It was a big enough mystery when Saturn’s hexagon was first discovered by going back to archival Voyager data, and then confirmed by Cassini. Over the past 36 years, Saturn’s hexagon has not only persisted, it’s remained completely unchanged in size, extent and speed over that time. An artifact of fluid dynamics and the wind speeds at the northern latitudes, the hexagon is a quasi-stable structure that will likely outlive us all.

Cassini’s true-color view of the north pole before the color change occurred. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute.

But the color of Saturn’s hexagon has changed over time, and not even over very long timescales. Since the north pole came back into sunlight in 2009, it was observed to be blue in color. But from 2012 to 2016, it gradually yellowed, having now achieved a color almost in sync with the rest of the planet. As solstice approaches next year, this effect should only intensify.

As Saturn approaches solstice in its orbit, the yellows are expected to intensify, but the hexagon should remain unchanged in structure. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute.

Find out — and see — why on this edition of Mostly Mute Monday!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2e5npuV

The Electoral College Map One Week Out: Clinton Victory Likely But Not Assured [Greg Laden's Blog]

A couple of weeks ago, it was impossible to find a pundit or poll maven who saw a Trump victory as a possibility. I made the audacious claim at the time that this was incorrect, and I’ve been taking heat from it since then. Much of this widespread misunderstanding is ironically caused by the good work of the folks at FiveThirtyEight and their imitators such as the New York Times, who have been publishing probability statements about the outcome.

If I know for near certain that Mary is going to beat Joe in an election, then I can say something like this:

Probability of winning

Mary: 97%
Joe: 3%

But, it is quite possible that I can say that with the following as my estimate for the vote distribution in in this race:

Mary: 50%
Joe: 50%

(Rounded off to the nearest percent. Not rounded, the values are Mary: 50.1%, Joe: 49.9%.)

So, statements like “Clinton has a 75.6% chance of winning, Trump has a 24.2% chance” can go along with an estimate of the popular vote of 49:44.5, and electoral vote estimate of 310.2:226.4 (those numbers are taken right off the FiveThirtyEight site at the moment I’m writing this, Monday AM).

This, in combination with a lot of happy arm waving during a period of about five days, when many very strong Clinton numbers were coming out of Poll Land, has resulted in widespread incredulity over any suggestion that Trump may win.

Let’s have a look at some sobering facts. The following are major source projections of the outcome of the race, giving only Clinton and Trump’s certain numbers. These are the states that those making the projections are putting in the strong Blue or the strong Red column.

Source	Clinton	Trump
CNN	200	157
NBC	182	71
NPR	190	98
538	187	154
AP	213	106
ABC	197	157

Here is a map I produced, using my model, providing my estimate of these numbers:

You will notice that my numbers are higher than the major outlets for both candidates. I guess I have more certainty in my model than they do. But, I imagine you do as well, dear reader, because those of you who have kindly commented here or on Facebook have generally been saying that you think certain states will a certain wahy, for sure. States like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, even Minnesota are given less certainly in those mainstream models than most of us seem to think.

In all cases, of course, neither candidate has the requisite minimum of 270 electoral votes, so in theory, either candidate can lose. “No, wait, that’s not true,” you say. “Clinton has way more votes to start with than Trump, so that’s just not true.”

And you may be right, but not for any good reason. It is totally possible for one candidate to have a base set of states, states that can not be lost, that totals to more electoral votes than another candidate, but for the remaining states to lean towards the second, smaller-base candidate. This is especially true in a heterogenous environment, like this one.

However, in this case, it does happen to be true that the remaining states tend to fall out in a way that favors Clinton on average, but not in all cases.

I’ve descried my model many times. It is calibrated with polling data that is most recent and from the highest quality sources. The presumed outcome in some states, based on that polling data, is the dependent variable in a multi-variable regression analysis where the independent variables are the ethnic breakdown of each state, and the relative Romney vote for each state in that election, to indicate Republican vs. Democratic trend. For the first time, because of a LOT of recent polling, and in a few cases using FiveThityEight’s estimate to stand in for some mediocre polling, I have used most of the states rather than fewer than half. One would think that this would simply spit back out the same polling numbers others have used, but it does not, because of the ethnic and Republicanosity factors, and some of the results are a bit surprising. For example, my model is not that happy about North Carolina voting for Clinton, and it is not that happy about Iowa voting for Trump.

Nor does my model have to be happy. The whole point of doing this model is to include a perspective that, while linked to polling, glosses over low quality or old polls (by not using them) and is not slave to a state-by-state analysis of polls, but rather, heeds lager scale and more general trends that we know are reasonable. The fact that my model puts the same states near the 50%-50% line as the polls do suggests (unsurprisingly) that we are all on the same page, but the fact that some details are different … well, that’s why they invented popcorn.

Anyway, having said that, I have a projection for the entire country based on my model, which I offer in competition (but subject to change before election day) against all the other models. Here it is:

There are a few things to notice here. First, as discussed elsewhere, there is no Clinton Landslide. This is mainly because Democrats can’t have landslides, because there are so many Yahoo states like Kansas and Oklahoma, and much of the deep south. Another thing to note is that I’ve left off three states. Much to my surprise, New Hampshire is not predictable. I thought it was going to fall out blue this year. Many people will complain about North Carolina not being blue, but face it: nobody had North Carolina as certain. Only one of the above cited (in the table) predictions has North Carolina leaning blue, the others all say nothing. Notice that Ohio is uncertain.

These three states leave a mere 37 electoral votes off the table, and give Clinton a resounding win with 310 Electoral votes.

But what if the Democrats end up putting into effect the greatest ever Get Out The Vote scheme, besting even those done by Obama? “Not likely,” you say? “Because people were more excited about Obama than Clinton,” you say?

You may be wrong. First, people are excited about Clinton. But people have more ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a woman than they have ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a black man. That, and the GOP hate machine has been running longer on Clinton than on Obama. So, yes, this will effect overall feelings but it does not effect the ground game, which is being run, on the ground, by people who don’t really care about those messages. They are busy being excited Democrats.

Another reason you might be wrong for thinking that is that the Clinton GOTV effort will be better than the Obama GOTV effort, all else being equal, because it is not based on excitement, but rather, methodology, data, and professional strategy. And, these things get better every election. So, it is quite possible that the Democrats will outperform the the Republicans in relation to the polls.

After consulting my advisors, I decided that a two point advantage could be given to the Democrats if they do the best they can do on the ground to trounce the Republicans. When we re-calculate on this basis, we get this map:

Sorry, Democrats, you don’t get Texas. But you do get Georgia and all the swing states! And a respectable win. Almost, but not quite, an arguable mandate. What you’ve got here, really, is a map of future wildlife refuge takeovers. And, a respectable Electoral College win.

But what if it goes the other way, the same amount? What if the monster under the bed (more accusations about email?) comes out. And at the same time, what if there is a real turnout among angry white males, energized by a victory in Idaho? What if men who are really worried about someone taking away their guns and locker room talk make their move?

There’s a map for that:

Ruh roh.

In this case, Trump wins. Trump wins by taking the swing states, all of them.

Notice that if all this happens, BUT Clinton takes Pennsylvania, OR, North Carolina OR Ohio, OR Florida, Trump loses. The chance of the map shown here being realized is very small. But possible.

Also, remember, that somewhere between this Trump win map and the smallest possible victory for Clinton (270) is that one odd combination where each candidate gets 269 votes, and the Electoral College ends the day having selected no one as president. In that case, the House of Representatives decides, and the way that is done, in combination with the way the numbers are (even if the Democrats actually take the House) is such that a Republican majority will prevail in that decision.

That would be the Republican Party’s last chance to stop Trump. But, will they allow a woman to be president as the only alternative that will be open to them?

Of course not. They’ll select the nuclear option, elect trump, and anyone who is still guessing at their motivations will know what the Republican Party is really all about. Ending civilization, because civilization can not exist without taxes and regulation.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eMslc1

A couple of weeks ago, it was impossible to find a pundit or poll maven who saw a Trump victory as a possibility. I made the audacious claim at the time that this was incorrect, and I’ve been taking heat from it since then. Much of this widespread misunderstanding is ironically caused by the good work of the folks at FiveThirtyEight and their imitators such as the New York Times, who have been publishing probability statements about the outcome.

If I know for near certain that Mary is going to beat Joe in an election, then I can say something like this:

Probability of winning

Mary: 97%
Joe: 3%

But, it is quite possible that I can say that with the following as my estimate for the vote distribution in in this race:

Mary: 50%
Joe: 50%

(Rounded off to the nearest percent. Not rounded, the values are Mary: 50.1%, Joe: 49.9%.)

So, statements like “Clinton has a 75.6% chance of winning, Trump has a 24.2% chance” can go along with an estimate of the popular vote of 49:44.5, and electoral vote estimate of 310.2:226.4 (those numbers are taken right off the FiveThirtyEight site at the moment I’m writing this, Monday AM).

This, in combination with a lot of happy arm waving during a period of about five days, when many very strong Clinton numbers were coming out of Poll Land, has resulted in widespread incredulity over any suggestion that Trump may win.

Let’s have a look at some sobering facts. The following are major source projections of the outcome of the race, giving only Clinton and Trump’s certain numbers. These are the states that those making the projections are putting in the strong Blue or the strong Red column.

Source	Clinton	Trump
CNN	200	157
NBC	182	71
NPR	190	98
538	187	154
AP	213	106
ABC	197	157

Here is a map I produced, using my model, providing my estimate of these numbers:

You will notice that my numbers are higher than the major outlets for both candidates. I guess I have more certainty in my model than they do. But, I imagine you do as well, dear reader, because those of you who have kindly commented here or on Facebook have generally been saying that you think certain states will a certain wahy, for sure. States like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, even Minnesota are given less certainly in those mainstream models than most of us seem to think.

In all cases, of course, neither candidate has the requisite minimum of 270 electoral votes, so in theory, either candidate can lose. “No, wait, that’s not true,” you say. “Clinton has way more votes to start with than Trump, so that’s just not true.”

And you may be right, but not for any good reason. It is totally possible for one candidate to have a base set of states, states that can not be lost, that totals to more electoral votes than another candidate, but for the remaining states to lean towards the second, smaller-base candidate. This is especially true in a heterogenous environment, like this one.

However, in this case, it does happen to be true that the remaining states tend to fall out in a way that favors Clinton on average, but not in all cases.

I’ve descried my model many times. It is calibrated with polling data that is most recent and from the highest quality sources. The presumed outcome in some states, based on that polling data, is the dependent variable in a multi-variable regression analysis where the independent variables are the ethnic breakdown of each state, and the relative Romney vote for each state in that election, to indicate Republican vs. Democratic trend. For the first time, because of a LOT of recent polling, and in a few cases using FiveThityEight’s estimate to stand in for some mediocre polling, I have used most of the states rather than fewer than half. One would think that this would simply spit back out the same polling numbers others have used, but it does not, because of the ethnic and Republicanosity factors, and some of the results are a bit surprising. For example, my model is not that happy about North Carolina voting for Clinton, and it is not that happy about Iowa voting for Trump.

Nor does my model have to be happy. The whole point of doing this model is to include a perspective that, while linked to polling, glosses over low quality or old polls (by not using them) and is not slave to a state-by-state analysis of polls, but rather, heeds lager scale and more general trends that we know are reasonable. The fact that my model puts the same states near the 50%-50% line as the polls do suggests (unsurprisingly) that we are all on the same page, but the fact that some details are different … well, that’s why they invented popcorn.

Anyway, having said that, I have a projection for the entire country based on my model, which I offer in competition (but subject to change before election day) against all the other models. Here it is:

There are a few things to notice here. First, as discussed elsewhere, there is no Clinton Landslide. This is mainly because Democrats can’t have landslides, because there are so many Yahoo states like Kansas and Oklahoma, and much of the deep south. Another thing to note is that I’ve left off three states. Much to my surprise, New Hampshire is not predictable. I thought it was going to fall out blue this year. Many people will complain about North Carolina not being blue, but face it: nobody had North Carolina as certain. Only one of the above cited (in the table) predictions has North Carolina leaning blue, the others all say nothing. Notice that Ohio is uncertain.

These three states leave a mere 37 electoral votes off the table, and give Clinton a resounding win with 310 Electoral votes.

But what if the Democrats end up putting into effect the greatest ever Get Out The Vote scheme, besting even those done by Obama? “Not likely,” you say? “Because people were more excited about Obama than Clinton,” you say?

You may be wrong. First, people are excited about Clinton. But people have more ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a woman than they have ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a black man. That, and the GOP hate machine has been running longer on Clinton than on Obama. So, yes, this will effect overall feelings but it does not effect the ground game, which is being run, on the ground, by people who don’t really care about those messages. They are busy being excited Democrats.

Another reason you might be wrong for thinking that is that the Clinton GOTV effort will be better than the Obama GOTV effort, all else being equal, because it is not based on excitement, but rather, methodology, data, and professional strategy. And, these things get better every election. So, it is quite possible that the Democrats will outperform the the Republicans in relation to the polls.

After consulting my advisors, I decided that a two point advantage could be given to the Democrats if they do the best they can do on the ground to trounce the Republicans. When we re-calculate on this basis, we get this map:

Sorry, Democrats, you don’t get Texas. But you do get Georgia and all the swing states! And a respectable win. Almost, but not quite, an arguable mandate. What you’ve got here, really, is a map of future wildlife refuge takeovers. And, a respectable Electoral College win.

But what if it goes the other way, the same amount? What if the monster under the bed (more accusations about email?) comes out. And at the same time, what if there is a real turnout among angry white males, energized by a victory in Idaho? What if men who are really worried about someone taking away their guns and locker room talk make their move?

There’s a map for that:

Ruh roh.

In this case, Trump wins. Trump wins by taking the swing states, all of them.

Notice that if all this happens, BUT Clinton takes Pennsylvania, OR, North Carolina OR Ohio, OR Florida, Trump loses. The chance of the map shown here being realized is very small. But possible.

Also, remember, that somewhere between this Trump win map and the smallest possible victory for Clinton (270) is that one odd combination where each candidate gets 269 votes, and the Electoral College ends the day having selected no one as president. In that case, the House of Representatives decides, and the way that is done, in combination with the way the numbers are (even if the Democrats actually take the House) is such that a Republican majority will prevail in that decision.

That would be the Republican Party’s last chance to stop Trump. But, will they allow a woman to be president as the only alternative that will be open to them?

Of course not. They’ll select the nuclear option, elect trump, and anyone who is still guessing at their motivations will know what the Republican Party is really all about. Ending civilization, because civilization can not exist without taxes and regulation.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eMslc1

October Pieces Of My Mind #3 [Aardvarchaeology]

• Leonard Cohen got from the used books store to the cake shop ahead of me. /-:
• Wish somebody would demolish all the modern houses on top of the ruins of Visborg Castle.
• The ruin of St. Olav’s church in Visby is a protected ancient monument. It is being damaged by the ivy that covers it. Sadly the ivy is a protected plant.
• Ny Björn points out something interesting about St. Olav’s ruin in Visby and its super ivy. An important reason that the ruin and the ivy survive today is that both fit well with Romantic ideas about picturesque ruins. Thus they were both preserved, and both for the same reason, when the Botanical Garden was laid out in 1855.
• Many of my colleagues don’t understad the distinction between being methodical and being methodological.
• Kadzic the genius carpenter recently switched out one of our room doors. It wasn’t a trivial job as he had to reuse the 1972 hinges. One thing in particular impressed me. Upon arrival Kadzic went straight to work without pausing to survey the situation. It’s such a simple immediate thing to him.
• Helping Cousin E decode northern working-class English in the movie This Is England.
• Jrette and I cleaned out an enormous quantity of comics, other children’s mags, jigsaw puzzles, fluffy animals and other toys from her room. Most of it had gone onto those shelves of hers when she was five, and it wasn’t useful to her any more now that she’s an unusually mature thirteen. None of these things can be sold other than at low price and with a huge investment of work. Yet I didn’t want to throw them away. So I took out an ad for free on the give-stuff-away site bortskankes.se. I was very pleased when it took only a few hours for a couple to arrive in their car and take them all off our hands.
• In a software context, Pat Murphy writes “subroutines” when she means multitasking.
• It’s 2016 and I’m making the acquaintance of The Smiths.
• Project: reconstruct as much as possible of the Finnish language using only bilingual packaging in Swedish grocery stores.
• March 1495: twelve men swear to Stockholm’s town council that whoever shat in one of the municipal cannon, it wasn’t Eric Finesmith.

I found the plaster original of Christian Eriksson’s “The Skater” in Karlstad County Museum. The bronze cast is in front of the Grand Hotel in Saltsjöbaden where I grew up.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eTIVEC

• Leonard Cohen got from the used books store to the cake shop ahead of me. /-:
• Wish somebody would demolish all the modern houses on top of the ruins of Visborg Castle.
• The ruin of St. Olav’s church in Visby is a protected ancient monument. It is being damaged by the ivy that covers it. Sadly the ivy is a protected plant.
• Ny Björn points out something interesting about St. Olav’s ruin in Visby and its super ivy. An important reason that the ruin and the ivy survive today is that both fit well with Romantic ideas about picturesque ruins. Thus they were both preserved, and both for the same reason, when the Botanical Garden was laid out in 1855.
• Many of my colleagues don’t understad the distinction between being methodical and being methodological.
• Kadzic the genius carpenter recently switched out one of our room doors. It wasn’t a trivial job as he had to reuse the 1972 hinges. One thing in particular impressed me. Upon arrival Kadzic went straight to work without pausing to survey the situation. It’s such a simple immediate thing to him.
• Helping Cousin E decode northern working-class English in the movie This Is England.
• Jrette and I cleaned out an enormous quantity of comics, other children’s mags, jigsaw puzzles, fluffy animals and other toys from her room. Most of it had gone onto those shelves of hers when she was five, and it wasn’t useful to her any more now that she’s an unusually mature thirteen. None of these things can be sold other than at low price and with a huge investment of work. Yet I didn’t want to throw them away. So I took out an ad for free on the give-stuff-away site bortskankes.se. I was very pleased when it took only a few hours for a couple to arrive in their car and take them all off our hands.
• In a software context, Pat Murphy writes “subroutines” when she means multitasking.
• It’s 2016 and I’m making the acquaintance of The Smiths.
• Project: reconstruct as much as possible of the Finnish language using only bilingual packaging in Swedish grocery stores.
• March 1495: twelve men swear to Stockholm’s town council that whoever shat in one of the municipal cannon, it wasn’t Eric Finesmith.

I found the plaster original of Christian Eriksson’s “The Skater” in Karlstad County Museum. The bronze cast is in front of the Grand Hotel in Saltsjöbaden where I grew up.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eTIVEC