http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

The other day I read an interesting article in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal. Next to the first paragraph was a picture of a politician with blondish hair, dressed in a dark suit, talking with and giving the thumbs-up sign to an older gentleman. A line in the initial paragraph read as follows: A statesman once opined, “Never trust people who lead a one-dimensional political life. They are dull and dangerous.” Immediately an image of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi popped into my head. The gentleman about whom the article was written is obviously not dull and obviously not one-dimensional. The tip-off that this was not about Donald Trump was that in the accompanying picture his tie was not tied in a Windsor knot.

This particular article article was about Boris Johnson, who is the favorite to be the next leader of the British Conservative Party and the prime minister of the U.K. I do not pretend to be knowledgeable about the politics in the U.K., but many of the lines in the article referring to Mr. Johnson could easily have been written, referring to Mr. Trump.

-He has been married and divorced in the past, and the woman that he is living with is      considerably younger than him.

-Mr. Johnson is a bit eccentric and has an unusual hobby. (I assume that his Twitter    use could be considered an unusual hobby for Mr. Trump.)

– “Britain is in the grip of Boris Neurosis. It is a psychological condition much like the     Trump Derangement Syndrome that has about half of the populace in paroxysms of fear and loathing – the metropolitan, cultural, media and academic elites in     particular.”

– “Every hour of every day on the BBC and elsewhere in the main U.K.media someone      seems to be expressing revulsion at the personality of Mr. Johnson and his utter      unsuitability for high office.” (Substitute CNN and U.S. mainstream media for BBC     and main U.K media)

– Mr. Johnson’s wit and charisma are widely liked outside the BBC-Westminster    bubble. (Again substitute CNN/MSNBC-Washington bubble.)

To sum it up, it appears that Boris Johnson speaks the language of the people as does President Trump!

In many sports, you can find betting odds and point spreads. For example, the New England Patriots could be favored by 7 points over the Buffalo Bills, or the Patriots are 3:2 favorites over the Bills. There are no polls in the world of sport’s predicting. No one at  ESPN, ABC, or Fox is calling one thousand people to get their opinion on who is going to win the Patriots-Bills game.

In the world of politics it is the opposite. There are numerous polls just about every week on just about everything including the 2020 presidential election. The problem is that in the past polls have been sometimes unreliable and at times far from accurate for a variety of reasons, but this is all we have . . .  or is it? Is there a betting line or odds on the 2020 presidential election, and what is the difference between betting line odds and a poll?

The key difference between a betting market and a poll is this – a poll is a snapshot of voter intention at any given time, often including those who are undecided, with an average sample size in the thousands. A betting market is a global future prediction pool, updating in real time, factoring in the opinion of millions of individuals forecasting an event – backing up their opinion with their own cash. In the past, starting in 1868, betting on presidential elections was legal in the U.S. Back then the betting was done predominately by wealthy U.S. politicians and entertainers. How did they do? In 11 of 15 elections the betters were right, and in the 4 that they lost, they predicted a tight margin. However, betting on presidential elections has been illegal since the 1930s, so I guess we are left only with polls . . . or are we?

Although political betting is currently illegal in the U.S., it  is alive and well in other markets. In fact, US-Bookies.com predicted via press release on 6/25/19 that over $100 million will be spent in the 2020 race, “making it the biggest non-sports betting event of all time.”The website US-Bookies.com uses millions of betting dollars worldwide to provide market trends. It specializes in U.S. politics and who wagerers think will win at any given time. A spokesman for them said. “The money wagered on each candidate dictates the odds and therefore the percent chance, based on simple laws of supply and demand. In 2016, some election simulators and polls gave Trump under a 2% chance of success, while the betting market comfortably gave the president anywhere between a 25% and 40% chance of success.”

US-Bookies.com posts probabilities which are derived from “bet365”, a U.K. betting market. In the U.K. this type of betting is legal, regulated, and very large. The odds are converted to more user friendly percents. As of  6/29/19 Donald Trump a 43% chance of winning the 2020 presidential election. This is up from 31.5% on 6/27 and up from 27.5% on 6/1/19. Of the Democratic candidates as of 6/29/19 Biden is at 15.1%, Harris is at 11.3%, and Warren is at 10%. In a straight-up battle with Biden, Trump still enjoys 51.2 to 48.8 percent lead over the former Vice President.

Updated odds as of 7/2/19 (in Britain):

Trump = 45.2%

Harris = 12.9%

Biden = 11.3%

Warren = 9%

I may have to contact my friend in Liverpool and see if I can put some money on the favorite!

The other day I referred to the Democratic debates as soporific and made an allusion to Rip Van Winkle, the classic 1819 short story by Washington Irving. In this tale Rip Van Winkle fell asleep and awoke 20 years later to discover the dramatic changes that had occurred while he was asleep, namely the American Revolution and its after effects. Most noticeable was that England’s King George was no longer in charge of the now new United States, and thus his small town at the foot of the Catskill Mountains was no longer considered “English.”

Imagine what things would look like if you had fallen asleep for nine years prior to the upcoming 2020 election. The biggest differences from your pre-sleep U.S.A. in 2019, and the “new and different” U.S.A. in 2028 were a consequence of the 2020 election  in which Elizabeth Warren had been elected as the President in a different type of American revolution.

First of all, using her sobriquet, “Pocahauntas,” had been outlawed by decree, and a mere slip of the tongue was now punishable by having to spend 6 months “teaching” at the now universal “preschool,” which was actually just free childcare starting at 6 weeks of age. It was rumored that some actually said “Pocahauntas” on purpose, because “babysitting” at the free universal childcare centers paid the standard minimum wage which had grown to $22.50 per hour, and this was better than being unemployed. The new normal GNP increase hovered at around 0.25%. Amazon, Google, and Facebook were things of the past as President Warren had fulfilled her vendetta against big business. Unfortunately, as a consequence of her animosity to Wall Street and to business in general, the stock market had taken quite a hit and the DJIA had only recently recovered some, now down to only 20% below what it had been prior to the 2016 election of Donald Trump.

Throughout the U.S. especially on the coasts, most youths spent most of their days just hanging out, smoking pot which was now legal federally. Yes, they all had college degrees and were debt free, but there were few jobs.  However everything was not bleak as one of the new entrepreneurial businesses would hold a spot for you in the line to see a physician’s assistant for an hourly fee. Because of Medicare-for-all and the abolishment of private medical insurance, schools for physician assistants had been booming, especially with the closure of many now free medical schools, and the retirement of upwards of 50% of practicing older physicians. Again a job as an underpaid physician assistant, earning the minimal wage, was better than no job at all, as in 2028 the unemployment rate had become pretty steady at 9%.

Upon awakening in 2028 and seeing the disastrous consequences of the 2020 Warren election, the first question might be, “How did Warren ever get re-elected in 2024?” The simple answer to that question would be “the abolition of the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote in 2023.” At that time the Democrats convinced all of the pot-smoking, debt-free, unemployed youth that “the popular vote was the only fair way to decide an election.” However, some would argue that the abolition of ICE, and the establishment of a truly open border in 2022 played a significant role in Warren’s 2024 re-election, especially in view of the fact that all illegals were granted the right to vote in 2023!

But be not dismayed, as the Democrats are guaranteeing that things can only get significantly better after the election of Vice President Kamala Harris in 2028!
“WAKE UP NOW, AMERICA!”

It is from a sense of guilt or from some form of altruism that a group of nearly 20 wealthy Americans on 6/24/19  released a letter asking for all 2020 presidential hopefuls to support a “moderate wealth tax” on the richest one-tenth of the richest 1 percent of Americans. To me, this is a very slippery slope. First, the richest 0.01, then the richest 0.1%, then the richest 1% . . . then what ?

The New York Times reported that the letter in part stated, “America has a moral, ethical and economic responsibility to tax our wealth more. A wealth tax could help address the climate crisis, improve the economy, improve health outcomes, fairly create opportunity, and strengthen our democratic freedoms.” The letter was signed by financier George Soros, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, heirs like Abigail Disney and others.

Of course those on the left will support almost any “tax the rich” proposal, and this letter specifically highlights Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) plan to tax “only 75,000 of the wealthiest families in the country,” and it cites South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) as being “already supportive of the idea” of a tax on the wealthiest citizens. Now I am not one of the “only” 75,000 who would be lucky enough to fall under the net of these liberal politicians, but I say to anyone, including Mr. Soros, “If you feel that the rich, like you, do not pay enough in taxes, then put up or shut up! Lead by example! Donate some of your excessive wealth to the government. Perhaps, many of the other uber rich will then follow your lead and do the same!”

A friend of mine donates 5% of his earnings to charity. He does not preach to others that they should do the same. He just does it because he feels that it is the right thing to do. Although neither the Mayor nor Beto are in Warren’s “lucky 75,000,” they are not destitute and I would suggest to them, “donate some of your money to the government; lead by example!”

On the other hand, President Trump is donating his entire salary to different causes. In March, 2019 he revealed that he donated a quarter of his $400,000 salary to the Department of Homeland Security. 

“While the press doesn’t like writing about it, nor do I need them to, I donate my yearly Presidential salary of $400,000.00 to different agencies throughout the year, this to Homeland Security,” Trump tweeted. What he did not tweet was: “All rich Washington politicians, especially those in the House and the Senate should follow my example and be donating a significant portion of their wealth or perhaps their entire salary to, for instance, help pay down the federal deficit. Do you hear me, Ms. Pelosi and Ms. Warren!”

“Help me, Rhonda!” Not the song by the 1965 Beach Boys, but just my way of requesting help for something I do not understand, namely measles in the U.S. and why the significant increase in the number of cases this year.
The CDC is reporting 1044 cases of measles in the United States thus far in 2019. This is the greatest number of cases reported in the U.S. since 1994, when 963 cases were reported for the entire year. Why the recent increase in the number of cases? Some would try to blame that increase, especially in Brooklyn, on religious exemptions, but I have not seen any figures documenting that the number of religious exemptions has dramatically increased. Certainly some parents are fearful of potential side effects, and choose not to have their child vaccinated, but I am not aware of this number significantly increasing.

As most of us know, measles is basically a highly contagious childhood viral infection that has occasional severe complications, such as pneumonia (infection of the lungs) and encephalitis (swelling of the brain). Children younger than 5 years of age and adults older than 20 years of age are more likely to suffer from complications, and about 1 in 5 unvaccinated people in the U.S. who get measles are hospitalized. The key word in this last statement is “unvaccinated.” 

Once quite common, measles can now almost always be prevented with a vaccine. The measles vaccine has been in use for over 50 years. It is safe, effective and inexpensive. It costs approximately one US dollar to immunize a child against measles. Two doses of the vaccine are recommended to ensure immunity and prevent outbreaks, as about 15% of vaccinated children fail to develop immunity from the first dose. Most people born before 1957 have been exposed to measles and have immunity. Those born after 1957, but before 1964 may not have immunity as the vaccine came along in 1963, but in general those that are susceptible to measles are unvaccinated. Again, the key word is “unvaccinated.”

So let’s try to use some common sense here. The number of measles cases in the U.S. is up dramatically this year, and there have been outbreaks in 28 states. Some outbreaks, e.g. the one in Newark, have been due to unvaccinated travelers in airports, and in some, the index case was in someone who travelled from afar, as in Washington State where the initial case was in a child, almost surely unvaccinated, who had come from Ukraine. However, I have not seen any data suggesting that there are more travelers to the U.S. this year.

It seems to me that one key point has been missing, or perhaps purposely not reported in this outbreak story. One unvaccinated individual can get measles, but an outbreak only occurs when that initial individual passes the virus to other unvaccinated individuals. Is there a reason why there might be a significant increase in unvaccinated people in the U.S. compared to years past? There is, of course, an obvious answer to that question . . . an increase in the number of individuals, a lot of whom are most likely unvaccinated, coming in droves across our southern border. To put things in perspective, $800,000 was spent containing one potential outbreak in Clark County, Washington, and this was only one of the multiple outbreaks across 28 different states. Perhaps this money could have been better spent vaccinating 800,000 illegal immigrants.

Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal) used to be one of my favorite opinion writers. I would look forward to her weekend piece, and would immediately find and read her column every Saturday morning. But then Donald Trump got elected, and Ms. Noonan became a chameleon. This must have been a truly traumatic experience for Ms. Noonan, as the quality of her writing seemed to go steadily downhill. No matter what her primary topic was, almost every week she would hit a mogul and would segue into Trump bashing. It got old, and recently I would often not read her opinion piece at all.

But then it happened. On 6/15/19 she wrote a common sense piece that was chockfull of good advice. I have taken the liberty of quoting her as follows:

“Now and then a country needs to get slapped.”

“A great nation can’t function cut in two, with half the nation at the other half’s throats. It can’t go forward in history that way; it must be one thing or the other, as Lincoln said.”

“You can’t insult the very idea off democracy and say, Oh well this is hard, so we’ll have a do-over on the vote, and hope that the people will have a different outcome. You have to accept the result and forge ahead.”
I was encouraged. Finally Ms. Noonan was coming around to a pro-Trump position! But as we all are aware it is always much easier to give advice to others than it is to apply that same advice to your own situation. “This is how you should raise your kids.” “This is how you should invest your money.” Etc.

Sure enough Ms. Noonan was finding it easy to give advice to some other country, namely Great Britain vis-a-vis on how to proceed with Brexit, when in fact she could have suggested these same bits of wisdom to our Democrat politicians . . . perhaps on border immigration, perhaps on fetal heartbeat and abortion, perhaps on the wisdom of expanding the welfare state.

Again to quote Ms. Noonan with some advice for politicians, “Stop whingeing it. You were hired to lead the people. If you are not talented enough to do that, you can at least follow them.”

Is this a one-and-done opinion piece for Ms. Noonan? Are we merely seeing another side of the Noonan-chameleon? Will she return next week to bashing President Trump?

The following is from Townhall:

“President Trump promised to enforce the border and deport people who shouldn’t be here. That’s not controversial. That’s the law. The president intends to enforce the law, announcing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement will begin a large-scale operation to find illegals and deport them. Large-scale ICE enforcement operations are typically kept secret to avoid tipping off targets, though it’s probably not coming within days, or at least that’s what The Washington Post is reporting. U.S. officials with knowledge of the preparations have said in recent days that the operation was not imminent, and ICE officials said late Monday night that they were not aware that the president planned to divulge their enforcement plans on Twitter.”Donald Trump said say on Twitter: “Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in.”

So fasten your seatbelts. When ICE comes calling, the Dems will be livid. The liberal newspapers and news programs will have plenty of sad photos depicting separation of families, etc. but perhaps the saddest will be the consternation and the fear in the minds of millions of hardworking illegals who have melted into our society. They came here in order to find a better life. They never tried to milk the system. They are working and are filling a significant role in society. Those of you who know my feelings on this illegal immigrant issue may be bored, but I need to restate my position. All illegal immigrants are not the same. To me this is obvious, and a big part of the liberal position on this matter is that they tend to group all illegals together. To my way of thinking they should be subdivided into three distinct groups. 

Group 1: Those who are working and are paying taxes. This group includes spouses, parents, and children. They are not U.S. citizens, and do not receive any of the benefits that are only for citizens, other than the education of their children. They do not receive food stamps. They are not eligible for social security. They cannot vote. They should never be eligible for citizenship. Their children (D.A.C.A.) are also not citizens, should never vote, and should not receive any of the social benefits that reserved for citizens. While this group is here illegally, they are not causing any trouble and are not a drain on the system . . . leave them alone!

Group 2: This group is made up of the “bad hombres.” They are the criminal element. They should be deported. They either have been convicted of a crime in the past, or are presently being charged with something, and if they are subsequently convicted of a crime, they should do their jail time and then be deported. Under no circumstances will they ever be advanced to Group 1.

Group 3: This group consists of those who are not working, and who are the beneficiaries of some sort of social benefit such as food stamps or welfare. They should be given a period of time to get themselves into Group 1 – get a job and stop the receipt of those social benefits that should be for U.S. citizens only. They would need to report monthly, and when they fulfilled the criteria, they would be moved into Group 1. If they are not able to move themselves into Group 1 after 6 months, then they and their families should be deported.

Now obviously all these illegals can only be put into a group if they present and declare themselves as being an illegal. Every illegal will have 6 months to identify him/herself, and be placed into a group. I would not expect those  who would be allocated to Group 2 to present themselves to the authorities. After 6 months if they do not present themselves and are thus not incorporated into a group, they will automatically be placed into Group 2.

This is a reasonable system. This is a fair system. This is a compassionate system. When ICE comes calling, those who are allocated to Group 1 will have nothing to fear. Those in Group 1 will not have to live in secrecy if ICE is in their neighborhood. If ICE were to detain them, once they were on record as being in Group 1, they would be immediately released.

This kind of a grouping system incorporates common sense, and that is precisely why politicians will never consider it!

Me: “I’m busy!”
They: “How can you be sure that you are busy on those two nights? The nights in question are about 10 days away. Certainly you can’t be busy on both nights. You don’t even know what time on either night.”
Me: “I’m pretty sure that I’m busy!”
They: “Well you surely can record the programs on both nights, and then watch them at your leisure any time during the following week.”
Me: “Sorry, no can do, as I’m busy for the entire following week. Besides I do not even know which channel MSNBC is on my cable.”
They: “Well, no doubt, there will be plenty in the newspapers in the days following the debates, and you can read about the witty comments and put-downs from each of the twenty candidates. It is likely to be very exciting!”
Me: “Unlikely that I will have time to read about the debates, as I’m very busy on both the 27th and the 28th. It might be amusing to read about “the day-after espirit de l’escaliers” of the participants, but these private thoughts will not see the light of day.”
They: I am super excited about the upcoming Democratic debates on June 26 & 27, and might even host a victory party of sorts of both nights.”
Me: “I looked at the scheduled participants on both nights, and an “Ambien-party” might be more exciting on the 26th. Yawn! Who are Tim Ryan, John Delaney, Jay Inslee, and Tulsi Gabbard? . . . can anyone imagine the president of the U.S. with a first name of “Tulsi”? Probably the biggest anticipation will be to see if anyone takes a shot at Pocahauntas, who seems to be the only one of the front-runners on that first night. But again, I’m busy!”
They: “Perhaps, after looking at the scheduled challengers on the first night, I will have my victory party on the second night, as this is where the real excitement will be.”
Me: “Help me here. WTF . . . who are Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, Michael Bennet, Eric Swalwell, and John Hickenlooper? Can anyone imagine a President Yang or a President Hickenlooper? Who are these twiddle-dums? . . . Yawn!”
They: “I agree that there are some sleepers on the 27th, but I can hardly wait to see Biden and Sanders face-off against Buttigieg and Harris – the old versus the new, the experienced versus the non-experienced.”
Me: “Like I have said, ‘I’m busy!” In fact I will be watching something a lot more exciting that night . . . the sunset!”

In the past few days two things caught my attention on the sport’s page because they demonstrated two extremes in the politics-sports dichotomy.

The Good:  Simon Pagenaud. 

After a behind-the-scenes tour of the U.S. Capitol and the White House, Pagenaud and the team spent about an hour with the president. They chatted about racing and posed for photos inside the oval office and outside the White House in front of Pagenaud’s winning car.

Pagenaud said, “He was very knowledgeable about racing. He knew all about Indianapolis. I don’t know what I should be saying or not,” Pagenaud laughed, “but he was very interested in knowing the strategy that was in my head the last 15 laps. It’s very rare that someone has so much interest in the sport like that. It’s very rare that you could keep their attention for so long. So I was very pleased and I was very impressed by the president.”

“To me, when the president of the biggest country in the world invites you to reward you for sports achievements, I think all politics aside, you say yes,” Pagenaud said. “Because it’s a recognition of your work, it’s a recognition of the hard work that was behind it. It’s very symbolic. It’s something that you can’t say no to, in my opinion. I think because it’s sports, you have to put aside any political views. It had nothing to do with politics.”

Good for Pagenaud. Good for NASCAR!

The Ugly: Megan Rapinoe

U.S Women’s National Soccer team co-captain Megan Rapinoe stood silent with her arms behind her back as the rest of the U.S. team placed their hands over their hearts and sang the Star-Spangled Banner ahead of the 6/11/19 game in Reims, France.

The 33-year-old U.S. star kept a stony demeanor as the rest of her team sang the Star-Spangled Banner in the Auguste-Delaune Stadium. Rapinoe had already warned that she would “never sing the anthem again.” Apparently she views her disrespectful actions as some sort of Trump protest. Her stoic selfishness made all the more blatant as it occurred in France where 75 years ago, almost to the day, thousands of Americans lost their lives on D-Day., and Reims is a mere 4 hour drive from Normandy! “FYI, Ms. Rapinoe, President Trump wasn’t even born on D-Day!”                                 

Bad for Megan Rapinoe. Worse for Women’s Soccer!

The Bad: Potentially bad for women’s soccer

The U.S. Women’s Soccer Team is favored to win this year’s World Cup, but you can be sure that if they do win, many will not care as they will have been turned of by the actions of the co-captain, Ms. Rapinoe. It will be too bad if the T.V. ratings for these soccer games are less than anticipated . . . remember what happened to the T.V. ratings after the N.F.L. players pulled their kneeling protests. Her actions being all the more unfortunate, occurring  at a time when women’s soccer is trying to get paid on a scale with men’s soccer. I like women’s soccer, but I will not pay to see Rapinoe play.

“It is glaringly apparent that many who support the present administration are either racist, steeped in religious beliefs, ignorant, or as my mother used to say, ‘just plain dumb’.”

This sounds eerily similar to what Hillary Clinton said about Trump supporters (“basket of deplorables”) prior to her defeat in 2016. (“Basket of deplorables” is a phrase from a 2016 presidential election campaign speech delivered by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton  on September 9, 2016, at a campaign fundraising event, which she used to describe half of the supporters of her opponent, Republican nominee Donald  Trump.) So who made this initial statement about those who support the present administration? It was Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), who tried to challenge Pelosi for the House speakership. She read a constituent letter that trashed Trump supporters on the House floor on 6/11/19. Why would she read such a thing on the House floor? Does she not realize that this sort of commentary will just fire up potential Trump voters in Ohio. A Trump victory in Ohio is critical to his re-election in 2020.

Keep talking, Marcia!

On the same day as Rep. Fudge read this obviously anti-Trump voter statement on the House floor, thus, in essence, making it her own, Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley College again saying things that can only come back to hurt Democrats in 2020. In a speech during an alumni event, she insinuated that Trump’s America could be more dangerous than…Nazi Germany. Now this may play well with the partisan Wellesley crowd, but this sort of comment can only fire up potential Trump voters in 2020. 

Keep talking, Hillary!

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg criticized President Donald Trump on Tuesday for turning the United States into a country that looked more like Russia. “Russia nationalism, xenophobia, homophobia, and repression of the press are both highly disturbing in that country and disturbingly ascendent in our own country,” Buttigieg warned.

I understand that for some reason unbeknownst to me, the mayor of South Bend is on the campaign trail, and he needs to play to his audience, but again this sort of bombastic rhetoric can only fire up potential Trump voters in 2020.

Keep talking, Mayor!

These bonehead statements came after Joe Biden stuck his foot in his mouth again. He made a campaign promise to “cure” cancer if elected president in 2020 during an event in the state of Iowa on 6/10/19.

“I’ve worked so hard in my career, that I promise you, if I’m elected president you’re gonna see the single most important thing that changes America, we’re gonna cure cancer,” Biden told supporters in Ottumwa, Iowa. At least he didn’t proclaim that he invented the Internet, but Joe, “really!”

Keep talking, Joe!