Wednesday, November 7, 2018

The full list of posts

The biggest lesson from the election, what did the Democrats do wrong?

The biggest lesson from the election, 
what did the Democrats do wrong?

I am a physics teacher.
It is not just a profession.
It is not just a job title.
It is a “diagnosis”.
My profession defines my way of thinking, my way of processing information and making decisions, even the way I look at the world in general.
For example, when I watch politics, I see it through a prism of science and natural laws.
I think about mechanisms which would help a certain political group achieve certain political goals.
I view various politicians the same way I view my students.
Every teacher knows that some students “get it” from the very first explanation, from the first time they see an example of a problem to solve and the process that does it.
But some students would need to see it twice, or maybe even three times before they finally get a good grasp of the explanation of the method needed to solve a problem.
And the Democrats are not the former ones, they are the latter ones.
They didn't do their homework after the loss in 2016. And I suspect they aren’t gonna do their homework this time again.
While everybody is celebrating the Democrats taking the House, which is a very good political achievement, I want to concentrate on the missing opportunities.
I want to describe – again – and again the method which, if the Democrats would be smart/brave/risky/innovative enough, would lead them for taking the Senate, too.
That method is called “Embracing the 3-rd party candidates”.
Of course, in order to work, every method, including this one, has to be applied correctly, or it will lead to the opposite result, or at least will not let to achieve the goal.
This is how the method works.
At the beginning of a race, about a year before the election day, a democratic candidate(s) and a 3-rd party candidate make an agreement. They announce that they have differences with each other, but they have much more in common in the opposition to the Republican candidate so, at the end of the race, they will let the best candidate win against the Republican. If needed, they will put aside their differences in order to defeat the Republican candidate. And a week or two before the election day the 3-rd party candidate (because I believe that for a while it is going to be a 3-rd party candidate) will announce that he or she doesn't have enough votes to win and will ask the supporters to vote against the Republican, which means for the Democrat.
This strategy would lead to a victory for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
This strategy also would lead to the victory in Arizona if Kyrsten Sinema and Angela Green would make such an agreement.
Also, this strategy could help to hold on Missouri and Indiana.
And the Republicans could also start using this approach. For example, they could win Montana.
/ This line is added on November 12, after it was announced that (1) Kyrsten Sinema won, and (2) Angela Green called on her supporters to vote for Kyrsten Sinema - so, the strategy did work, even when some of the Angela Green supporters still vote for her! Now there is a proof. /
Data show that for the Democrats to win having the majority of the votes is simply not enough.
The Democrats have twelve million more votes but still do not have the Senate.
It is a clear sign that they have to start thinking outside of a box, start using innovative political strategies, and have to start doing it before the Republicans get the same ideas (who are very inventive people). Winning in politics requires more than just campaigning and promoting ideas. Republicans know that very well.
Whining and pointing fingers at the Republicans is not enough.
In 2016, the Democrats didn't do their homework, and that is why they didn't get the Senate in 2018.
The question now is, will the Democrats do the homework this time?

P.S. This is the only strategy which eventually could put an a political map an actually powerful 3-rd party.
The political mission of the third party is not electing third-party candidates, but helping the best candidates to be elected.
If some day from now the best candidate will be the third-party candidate, that will be just great!
But in the current elation cycle or cycles ahead expecting that a non-Republican or a non-Democrat would have a good chance to be elected is just not realistic (so far the number does not grow above 2 well-known politicians).
And the motto of the third-party is “We are the realists who help making the future better!”
This approach requires humility, humbleness, and even sacrifice, because one has to spend a lot of energy on helping others to get elected. But in return the party gets noticed, then gains respect, then trust, and then - only then - it can count on electing its own members en mass.

Friday, October 26, 2018

How I voted

I always use an opportunity to vote yearly. No lines!
This election cycle my vote was based on a specific strategy.
In a red state "everyone" needs to vote democratic.
Here "everyone" means "who is not sure how to vote".
People who for a long time have been voting in a certain way will not change their vote (they do not want to upset their political tribe).
In a blue state - where I am -  "everyone" needs to vote according to this calculation:
1. Republican v. Democrat => vote Republican.
2. Republican v. Democrat v. 3d-element => vote 3d-element
3. Democrat (no opposition) => vote for no one.
Because the Democrats need to see their numbers falling down.
they need to be shaken, they need to be scared, because they still think that 2016 was a fluctuation. They still have no idea what and why happened and what to do.
The Republican represent a strong political force; they have goals and a strategy. We may not like those goals and that strategy but we need to respect their determination and skillfulness.
The Democrats have no specific goals, no strategy.
And they are stuck in 20-years old thinking.

Monday, October 15, 2018

An Open Letter to Dr. Charles Wheelan, The Founder of Unite America

An Open Letter to Dr. Charles Wheelan, The Founder of Unite America

To Dr. Charles Wheelan,

Dear Dr. Wheelan,

on April 8, 2017 I wrote a large paper on the true mission of the third political party.

Later in the following papers I've clarified my views on the matter. At the time, I didn't know about the existence of your Unite America group. I only learned about you and your project yesterday from the media.
Quickly checking your website, I realized that your group has declared the political strategy similar to the one I have described in my posts.
You called it the “Fulcrum Strategy”.
I also have found that from 2013 your group called The Centrist Project, and changed the name in January 2018.
I don’t know if your Fulcrum Strategy was influenced in any way be one of my posts, or not (I am still waiting for your book The Centrist Manifesto), but it does not matter, because it appears that you using the strategy in a wrong way.
Or at least it seems like you have misunderstood the main idea of the purpose of the third political party.
No doubt, ultimately it would be a great achievement if the third-party candidates, or independents would be elected into various entities of the government.
the political mission of the third party is not electing third-party candidates, but helping the best candidates to be elected.
If some day from now the best candidate will be the third-party candidate, that will be just great!
But in the current elation cycle expecting that a non-Republican or a non-Democrat would have a good chance to be elected is just not realistic.
And the motto of the third-party is “We are realists who help making the future better!”
Realistically, in the current environment a third-party candidate would not attract enough voters in order to win the election. So, about two weeks before the election day, the third-party candidate should address to his or her followers and to urge them to give their votes to the best candidate, who, again, in the current political environment, is a Democrat.
I'm afraid that your strategy of promoting third-party candidate to the very end will hurt democratic candidates in close races, and actually will help to elect Republican candidates, which had happened before (including 2016 presidential election). 
Pursing this strategy can only deter people from your group.
Dr.Valentin Voroshilov
I got the book.
And it is clear Dr. Wheelan and I have independently come up with the idea of having a small number of independents in a Senate to rule it.
But Dr. Wheelan stopped just there.
He wants to create another party, like many other 3d-party enthusiasts.

 And that makes him (and his party) no different from any other 3d-party enthusiast, i.e. delusional narcissist (delusional narcissists).
As I stated before, the main purpose of a 3d-party is not promoting its own candidates, but helping the best candidates to get elected. This approach requires humility, humbleness, and even sacrifice, because one has to spend a lot of energy on helping others to get elected. But in return the party gets noticed, then gains respect, then trust, and then - only then - it can count on electing its own members.

BTW: How I voted  

Friday, October 5, 2018

Are the Democrats gutless idiots?

I'm doctor Valentin Voroshilov.
I am making this video in a traffic on my way to work.
It’s been a while since my last video commentary, but the situation with the Supreme Court hearings forces me to make the following statement.
Democrats are gutless idiots.
It is a sad realization but an accurate description.
I've been waiting to hear a statement from Chuck Schumer, or Nancy Pelosi, or Senator Sanders, or Senator Warren, or from new stars of the Democratic party, saying something like this.
“I, Chuck Schumer promise you that Brett Kavanaugh will not be a Supreme Court Justice.
In current circumstances, he may be confirmed because Republicans have lost any moral limits, they cheat, they lie and deceive, they bend rules.
But I, Chuck Schumer, promise you that we, Senate and House Democrats, will not stop never ever until we will impeach Brett Kavanaugh for lying under oath.
President Trump in not forever, and the FBI investigation can and will be done as thorough as it needs to be done.”
Well, evidently democrats are not smart enough and not brave enough to make such a statement.
They still live in the era when politics was done by competing ideas. But that era is dead. It died 2 years ago. These days politics is done be the competition of characters.
And this is what no single Democrat demonstrates so far.
Thank you.
And thank you, World, for our existence.

Appendix I
By electing Donald Trump America marked the end of the era of American exceptionalism. There is nothing new - from the point of view of human history - in electing an opportunist who rides a wave of populism addressing emotions of an angry mob. This process has a name "elite degradation".  

Appendix II  
I know that calling Democrats "gutless idiots" is not nice, and may even be not polite.
So, why do I use strong language?
To make a point. To stress the striking difference between how Chuck Schumer, et. all, represent themselves ("smart and fearless fighters") and what their actions actually tell about them.
Of course, I do not use such language in my everyday life, I follow general social conventions. But I believe that many people confuse what means "being polite" and "being nice".

Appendix III  
On February 21, 2017, I wrote an open letter two four top Democrats, where I laid out the strategy for countering out Donald Trump. If that strategy would have been adopted, we would not have to push Democrats for an impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice. In followup publications I explained why my strategy has not been adopted. 
The Kavanaugh confirmation will give a boost to anti-Trump forces. But what does it tell about a force if it needs to be boosted by something awful in order to start acting?
I still hope that in November Democrats will take the Congress back. However, I am positive that if that happens, they will make a very wrong conclusions from that victory. They will think that people again love Democrats more than Republicans. In realty, it would only mean that people finally hate Democrats less than Republicans. And this is why I predict that even if Democrats will take back the Congress, they will not be able to demonstrate to American people anything positive - action-wise (remember the Bush-era?). And because of that, they will be crashed in 2020.
Because loudly screaming nice ideas 
is NOT enough any more. 
People need ACTIONS!

But thinking so far ahead is something what Democrats (almost) never do. Here is the evidence.

1st the GOP came for gerrymandering.
    The Democrats did nothing.
Then the Republicans came for Voter ID.
    The Democrats did nothing.
Next Conservatives came for lower level judges
    The Democrats did nothing.
Then Christians came for across Country local TV networks.
    The Democrats did nothing.
And now misogynists came for a Supreme Court Justice.
    And the Democrats still do nothing.

Because screaming is NOT acting. 

But on November 6 we have to vote against any GOP candidate, hence for Democrats.
However, on the next day (!) we have to start asking our beloved Democrats - WTF?!
And start looking for the replacements.

Because if not drastically changed, this road leads to "Hail Our God Given Dictator".

Read how rich philanthropists failed democracy (from “Inside Philanthropy”).

Friday, August 24, 2018

Social Arithmetic is amazingly trivial!

Social Arithmetic is amazingly trivial!
The basic model has only one parameter and three variables.
1. Calculating an Individual Social Index:
ISI = smart*honest*active
with conditionings:
(a) if ANY of the multiples/factors is equal to ZERO the whole product is ZERO.
(b) if ANY (or two, or all three) of the multiples/factors is negative the whole product is negative.
2. Calculating the Compound Social Index:
CSI = the sum of all ISI for all individuals living in the Country

If CSI >> 0 the society is on the progressive path.
If CSI ~ 0 the society is in the turmoil, social incoherence, revolution-type situation.
If CSI << 0 the society is on the regressive path, degrades, in a social decline.

In 2016 in America CSI was slightly negative.

In 2018 in America CSI is close to ZERO.

P.S. my shortest post so far; demonstrates the role of mathematics!