Pro-Russian propaganda in Ukraine

   I've been on Twitter a lot this weekend watching the Ukraine invasion. There are a number of pro-Russian accounts tweeting either blatant chest-thumping propaganda about the powerful Russian military, or dishonest hand-wringing about Ukraine is doomed and should just surrender. Most of these propaganda tweets fall into some neat categories, which makes them suspect almost immediately. Let's look at them: 

• The Russian military is very strong! It's a big military, no doubt. But it also has a lot of territory to defend, and it's created a lot of hostile enemies all around it. It also has serious industrial capacity and supply chain issues that make it very difficult to replace tanks, helicopters, and high-tech weapons it loses. Its munitions plants can crank out guns and ammo for those guns. Beyond that, it will take a long time for Russia to replace the weaponry it's lost. Corruption, too, is rife within the military. Parts have been sold off on the black market, and nobody knows how much of the armor and artillery Russia claims to have on paper actually is in working order. In other cases, the military has billed for weapons that never existed, with the manufacturer splitting the cost with the military. Last, estimates are that this invasion is costing $250M a day. That's a lot of money for a country that isn't operating on the basis of a default currency (like the U.S.), as well as a country facing crippling sanctions. 
• Russia won in Grozny! Yeah, after more than three months. And Grozny was tiny compared to Kiev. Also, Grozny was the only military garrison in the country. The Ukrainian situation seems vastly different. The entire Ukrainian resistance doesn't collapse if Kiev is taken. The military command is very de-centralized. This is also why the constant hand-wringing whining that Kiev is under attack (!) is pointless. A "decapitation" strategy won't work in this case. Also, it's very possible for Ukraine to keep being supplied from the west by NATO allies -- not to mention well-developed networks of humanitarian aid that Chechnya lacked. Even if Kiev is levelled, street fighting could easily last for weeks and be very expensive for the Russian military. Last, Russia 'defeated' the Grozny resistance by tricking (lying to) Chechens into walking out of Grozny for a surrender. Instead, they were mercilessly wiped out by Russian troops and mines before they could surrender.  It's doubtful this trick would work twice.
• Russia is just sending their untrained troops in first to soften up Ukraine. This is ridiculous. Everything about the logistics shows that Russia planned a campaign that would be wrapped up in about three days. You don't send in untrained troops for a "blitzkrieg" campaign. It's obvious that their supply lines were set up for a short three-day effort, and a "decapitation" that would leave any resistance crumbling. Instead, Russia has lost a lot of tanks, armored vehicles, and helicopters that they would need for a sustained campaign. Paratroops are not "untrained", and they've lost a lot of them. Highly-experienced units like the Chechen Kadyrov forces were sent in and wiped out by Ukraine. Likewise, Russian engineering units to replace bridges (not "untrained") were wiped out by air. It is true that a lot of untrained Russian conscripts have been captured or killed. But they're being allowed to call home and are being treated humanely, so this is just a big morale failure for the Russian military. If anything, it's the Russian military that's being "softened up", and the Ukrainian troops are quickly learning from the few casualties they've suffered.
• Just wait for the thermobarics! These are thermobaric shells that produce fire and consume oxygen around the target. These don't work well in open areas, as oxygen just floods in from the surrounding air. They're designed to defeat underground bunkers. Russia has a very limited supply of these shells, and no way to replace them when they're used. They're also vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, and need a steady supply of fuel to move the mobile platforms carrying the shells. This is the same problem they face with tanks and other armored vehicles: They can get in relatively far, but they can't be re-fuelled. It's child's play to blow up tankers carrying diesel along highways. The "thermobarics" narrative is mostly used by hand-wringers who pretend to be concerned about the potential devastation of such weapons, but who really are cheering for their use.
• People are fleeing Kiev! Of course, civilians are fleeing the city! They have a relatively safe evacuation route, a friendly Polish government to welcome them, and trains to move them efficiently. The whole idea of the invasion is that civilians would be trapped in Kiev by the "blitzkrieg", and that the city would be surrendered to avoid loss of life. Instead, Kiev is being methodically ceded to the invasion, forcing Russia to expend scarce missiles and troops on an empty city, with the inevitable Russian casualties of urban combat. 

 The bottom line is that Russia needed this to be a rapid invasion that replaced the Ukrainian government with a puppet leadership. Kiev is not the prize Russia believes it to be. Military aid from NATO, while slow, will reach Ukrainian troops within a week. Humanitarian aid will flood the country. Russian money will be in short supply, and their troops will go hungry and unpaid. Russian supply lines will become increasingly tenuous. Russia doesn't have weeks, much less months like the Grozny siege required. The longer this goes on, the more anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air missiles will end up in Ukrainian hands. And also, the more international volunteers will pour in -- well-equipped, highly-motivated, and well-trained by other militaries -- to dislodge Russians from their positions with RPGs and air support. 

 Russia assumed that Ukraine would fold quickly. That hasn't happened. If NATO aid had already arrived, Russian troops would be routed. 

 It should be very easy for the U.S. to openly provide non-lethal aid like food (MRE's), body armor, night-vision goggles, communication equipment, armored personnel carriers, field medical kits, solar panels with batteries, detailed maps, satellite comms, water purification supplies, and even things like handcuffs and leg irons for captured prisoners. This is easy stuff. Even Republicans would vote for it. If it's delivered in a timely manner, and distributed efficiently, it would turn the tide against Russian forces. 

 It's hard to imagine NATO intelligence services, and even non-aligned countries like Finland, passing up the chance to provide covert aid to Ukrainian forces. Russian leadership is always susceptible to bribes. Air-drops of ammo are always possible, and easy to accomplish. 

 The Russian army would bear the most significant cost of such a long-term war, followed by the air force. 

 The Russian military can't bear the financial costs of even a month-long conflict. That would be $7.5B they don't have. There isn't any pot of gold waiting for Russia if they take Ukraine. It's a largely agricultural country that would require extensive rebuilding after a war. There is no best-case scenario that works out in Russia's favor over the long-term. Its military would end up substantially weakened, its economy in a shambles, probably in huge debt to its main rival China. And China would likely demand naval support for their war on Taiwan.  

 Nothing good will come of this for Russia. Ukraine is not Chechnya. The leftist supporters of Russia will end up looking like fools, as will the Right throughout Europe and America. 

New polling in MN Governor race

  SurveyUSA -- which has a history of underestimating Democratic candidates in MN -- has released a new statewide poll. 

The results aren't very good for MNGOP. The party favorite is Gazelka, and he trails Walz by 5 points. It's also interesting that 41% have no opinion of him, so his 37% statewide share is mostly just people who will vote for any Republican against Walz. None of MNGOP's candidates have a "favorable" rating of 20% or more, while Walz is above water by 8 points (45/37). 

 Polling only slightly better than Gazelka is Jensen. Jensen is a physician who has spread a lot of misinformation about COVID, and has supported anti-vax and anti-mandate positions emphatically.

Jensen on Wikipedia

 Jensen is the originator of the lie that hospitals get more money if they diagnose a patient with COVID. While he claims to support vaccines in general, he stipulates that the COVID vaccine is "not a vaccine". He further promises to "ban'" non-existent workplace vaccine mandates. 

 Jensen still trails Walz by 3 points, and 41% have no opinion of him. He has only 18% of voters with a favorable opinion of him, in spite of his national profile. 

 This is the lunacy of MNGOP. Minnesota is heading into an election this year with no current lockdowns, no vaccine mandates, no statewide mask mandates, declining cases, and a 78% vaccination rate. And the vast majority of those now dying in this pandemic are now MNGOP's voters. Yet, their plan is to run on the pandemic. 

 MNGOP has been highly consistent with their proposed one-step plan to address the pandemic: do nothing. 

 They have put forward no solutions, no concrete steps, no alternatives. They bitterly attacked the lockdown, opposing it in the Legislature. While they once argued for a lockdown for only a few (urban) counties, they simultaneously argued against the lockdown in the metro, as well. They seem to think that people don't move between counties. Even when the lockdowns existed, MNGOP cheered businesses that ignored the measure. They cheered people ignoring mask mandates, even mandates imposed by a particular business. They made heroes out of people being kicked out of stores for refusing to wear a mask. Their candidates held indoor, mask-free campaign events during the lockdown. 

 Even when the pandemic moved into their rural voting base, their entire plan was "ignore it". Over and over, the public was treated to glib philosophical takes like "Everybody dies" by Republicans. 

 But, by the time the election rolls around, most restrictions will have faded. "Long COVID" will plague their base, along with huge medical bills that wipe out generational wealth. Unvaccinated Republican voters will continue to get sick and even die, but the numbers will be small (and local) enough that they won't justify statewide or even county-wide action. Mask mandates will probably be curtailed. 

 Basically, MNGOP will be running against the idea of doing anything for the next pandemic. The State will be following their plan of doing nothing. How does this play into the hands of a candidate like Jensen who promises to do nothing to address any pandemic?

 MNGOP's strength is the same as it was in 2020: a rabid pro-Trump base. They will fail to gain any support from opposition to measures taken to address the pandemic, because the pandemic will already be fading by November.

 Jensen's lead among Independent voters is a marginal four points. His lead among rural voters is only ten points -- not enough to offset the population advantage of the metro area. Judging by past statewide elections, MNGOP needs more than 70% of the rural vote to come close in a statewide race. Jensen offers only 49%, with 11% undecided. In southern MN, the supposed "MNGOP stronghold", Walz leads by four points against MNGOP's strongest candidate: Jensen. 

 It's also interesting that Gazelka, who is actually an experienced Republican politician, gets only 43% of the statewide rural vote against a man MNGOP has devoted every resource into demonizing for years. MNGOP's base has transformed from a Republican base into a Trump base. There are no more policy positions to be found. How long can MNGOP get by with nothing more than "trolling the libs" to maintain that base?

MN State Fair "Health Guidance"

  I was not amused to see the State Fair list "Stay home if you're not feeling well" as part of their "health guidance". This is the public health equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" -- completely worthless advice. 

 People who are contagious with COVID-19 usually have sniffles or an infrequent cough. NOBODY would consider these symptoms as "not feeling well". Imagine you saw someone in public blowing their nose into a tissue. If you walked up to them and asked, "Are you not feeling well?", what do you think they would say? 

 I'd guess "Oh, it's nothing", "It's just allergies", or "I'm just a little stuffed up" would be popular responses. The point is that none of these responses indicate the person considers themselves to be "unwell". Yet, this is the exact symptom that someone contagious with COVID-19 would have.

IF SOMEONE WHO IS CONTAGIOUS WITH COVID-19 DOESN'T CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE "NOT WELL", THEN TELLING PEOPLE TO "STAY HOME IF YOU DON'T FEEL WELL" WON'T AFFECT THEIR DECISION TO COME TO THE FAIR.

 This is almost exactly the same as telling someone who is drunk "Don't drive if you think you're impaired". NOBODY who is drunk considers themselves to be "impaired" -- and if they do, they are absolutely convinced that they "can handle it". Nobody who has "the sniffles" considers themselves to be sick, either.

 Of course, it's even dumber than it seems. Most people would consider themselves to "not feel well" if they suffered from a hangover, had stiff joints or muscles, had a toothache, had indigestion or constipation, etc. 

 So the brilliant "health guidance", were it not ignored, would have someone suffering from a hangover say, "I'd better stay home. I don't want to give anyone COVID". Not sure how that advances any public health goal. But someone who just has "the sniffles" is sure that it'll clear up right away, so they don't think that they are "not well" and they won't stay home -- even though they are likely spreading the virus! 

 I suppose if someone were wheezing, coughing, and having trouble breathing, they might think they didn't "feel well". But they probably wouldn't be planning on a visit to the State Fair, either. If someone with COVID-19 is sick enough to consider themselves to be "not well", it's already too late. 

Hmm. This "health guidance" now breaks down to "If you're too sick to walk around for hours in the heat, you should stay home". How many people who are that sick were ever really planning on staggering around the Fairgrounds, gasping for breath, coughing constantly, sinuses clogged up -- sounds like a lot of fun, eh?

Gee, the geniuses at the State Fair have basically offered a "health guidance" that says, "If you're too sick to enjoy being at the Fair, you shouldn't come to the Fair". 

 Yep. That will make a lot of difference. 

But these same people expect the public will take heed of the State Fair's "urging" them to wear a mask. Because the Fair has so much credibility on public health issues.

Nimble employers win

  Minnesota has a very tight labour market. It's reported that there are two job openings for every person looking for work. Unemployment in the metro is just over 2%.
 
Many employers haven't figured this out yet, though. They still believe that it's 2008, and long lines of desperate applicants will form when they announce an opening. Especially in the case of skilled workers, they are finding that they have only a handful of candidates to pick from -- at best. This is after months of searching, bringing in recruiters, placing online listings, calling around to their 'network', and offering 'referral bonuses'. Often the people that do apply want a wage that is out of their range. Hardly anyone is accepting 'trial for hire' (i.e. temporary) arrangements. If they did, you'd have to wonder why. Everyone willing to work is already working. And everyone that's working is looking for a better position.
 
In short, every employer is trying to hire workers from someone else. A lot of employers have figured this out by now, but their actual hiring practises don't reflect this. The hiring process moves at a glacial speed, and these slow employers often lose out on qualified candidates simply because other employers are more 'nimble'.
 
I start at a new job in a few days. The hiring process was relatively fast: three weeks. It could have done in half that time, however. My current (soon to be former) employer took over six weeks to hire me. The only reason I stuck it out was because they were located very close to my home. Another former employer took an ungodly nine weeks to actually make an offer.
 
What are the common delays?

• Waiting for 'better' (i.e. cheaper) applicants. While they wait, the qualified applicant gets hired by someone familiar with the state of the local labour market. The slow employer usually ends up paying more or ending up with someone far less qualified. This also includes the ever-popular "internal posting policy", which means somebody might want to move into the job for less money...so we have to let them have first crack at the position, right? 
• Multiple interviews. You might interview with a manager and a supervisor. Then, the employer decides that 'Steve' needs to talk to you, because he has a tangential role in your job. Now you have to wait for Steve's calendar to be clear, and the first two will want to sit in on the interview...so three people now need to be available on the same day and time. Then there's the HR interview, which can never be done on the same day. Every scheduling conflict moves the date back an entire week, for some unknown reason. And every interview requires the applicant to take time off his current job. Meanwhile, someone else has hired them.
• HR reps are sloooow. By the time you get to the HR rep, weeks have been used up -- if not an entire month. But the biggest delay is yet to come. HR reps seem to always be on vacation, out of the office, in meetings, or at seminars. And they always want a three hour window in their schedule to handle a 30 minute interview. Pretty much all of it could be done over the phone. The benefits sheet could be emailed, but they really want to read it out loud to you in your presence. Then they need to schedule the drug screen and background check. This process might take 15 minutes, but they somehow need to wait for the stars to align just right or wait until they have a couple of hours free. This whole process can easily take three weeks. 
• Wanting to see if the replacement solution "works out". In virtually every case, the previous employee has left before the employer really even starts "looking". Someone has been assigned the previous employee's workload. They are the next person who will be leaving, usually. Maybe they can handle two jobs. Who knows? There might be a nickel raise in it for them, after all. Or there might not. Let's give them time to settle in to their 60-hour week, with unrealistic expectations and constant failure to live up to those expectations. They're a "team player", right? We told them it would only be for two weeks, and it's been two months. Let's wait another month before we even begin the months-long hiring process. We'll tell them we're "looking" hard. Really hard.
• "Corporate approval". This is the best delay. The employer is taking resumes, has listed the job as open, even talked to promising candidates. But the department or manager now needs "approval from corporate" to actually hire a person. Golly gee, it's out of their hands. Word  could come down any day now. The qualified candidate just got hired by someone else, though. 

 
All of these delays are premised on a delusional notion that people really, really want to work for their company, and will put up with anything to get a shot. I mean, we have benefits (everybody does). We pay a competitive wage (everybody does). We have a "great team" (everybody does). There's opportunities for advancement (meaning more work for the same money). Everybody has those, too.
 
These slow employers also compound the damage of their hiring practises. Candidates who give up on the glacial pace are frequently black-balled from future consideration. This causes negative word-of-mouth to spread about the practises of the slow-hiring company. This means even fewer applicants for positions going forward. Often, the lesson learned by their glacially slow hiring is that the employer wasn't careful enough. They should have been even slower, in order to determine if the applicants are really and truly serious about working for them.
 
What ends up happening to these slow companies is pretty simple. They hire a less-experienced person for a low wage and tell that person copious lies. Big raises are a certainty...if they "work out", for example. This person leaves after a short while, because they now have the requisite experience to get a much higher wage from another company eager to hire them away. The replacement person has left...which means more "opportunities" for the new hire (sure)...so they are even worse off than before.

Meanwhile, the nimble company has hired all of the best people around, leaving the slow company with inferior candidates and even poorer options. If the nimble company has any future openings, word-of-mouth will go a long way to ensuring that they have the best selection. The slow company will literally have their people hired out from under them before they even have a glimpse of a clue.
 
As I said, it shouldn't take more than two weeks too hire a qualified person.

2018 midterm MN polling roundup

Fivethirtyeight.com has predictions for the midterms up.
 
MN-1: R+3.2  Hagedorn 51.6, Feehan 48.4

MN-2: D+2  Craig 52, Lewis 48

MN-3: D+4.8  Phillips 53.4, Paulsen 48.6

MN-4: D+37.7  McCollum 67, Ryan 29.3

MN-5: D+60.8  Omar 80.4, Zielinski 19.6

MN-6: R+26.8  Emmer 63.4, Todd 36.6

MN-7: D+10.2  Peterson 55.1, Hughes 44.9

MN-8: R+1.2  Stauber 48.6, Radinovich 47.4

________________________________________________
 
September polling:
 
MN-2 (9/23) SurveyUSA   Craig 48, Lewis 45
MN-2 (9/29) PPP               Craig 48, Lewis 45
MN-3 (9/18) PPP               Phillips 52, Paulsen 39
MN-3 (9/9) Sienna              Phillips 50, Paulsen 40
MN-8 (9/9) Sienna              Radinovich 42, Stauber 43
Gov (9/8) Survey USA        Walz 47, Johnson 40
Gov (9/12) Mason-Dixon    Walz 45, Johnson 36
Sen (9/12) Mason-Dixon     Smith 44, Housely 37
Sen (9/12) Mason-Dixon     Klobuchar 60, Newberger 30
 
While we might lose MN-1 and MN-8, I think we will win MN-2 and definitely MN-3.
Getting rid of Paulsen will be huge. It will be a big blow to the MNGOP.
A defeat for Lewis would also be deeply symbolic, as he's tied himself strongly to Trump.
In 2014, MN-2 went for the Republicans by 17.17 points. In 2016, it went for Lewis by 1.79 points. He didn't even win a majority (46.95) in a strong year for the MNGOP. The trend doesn't look good for Republicans in this District.
 
Of course, we will also lock in Klobuchar for six years. And Smith will get two years, running as an incumbent in a presidential year election. We will hold on to the Governorship.
The MNGOP is loudly bragging about their chances to take the AG against Ellison, but I'm sceptical.
Stauber is a weak candidate in the 8th, and 2020 will not be kind to Trump-supporting candidates in MN.
  
Going deeper, this is Jeff Johnson's last shot, and he looks destined to defeat. His career for state-wide office is over. Housely will go down, putting an end to one of the few fairly prominent female MNGOP politicians. It remains to be seen what will become of a defeated Lewis; the MNGOP may have future plans for him elsewhere. Like Paulsen, he will probably pop up in a Senate or Governor's race.

Employment recruiters suck

  Even though I'm employed full-time (and have been for years), my resume has been up on job sites in the past. This is okay, because there might be a job out there that has better pay, is closer, or is more interesting work. I thought that it would be nice to let recruiters do the job search work, and let me know of any good openings. 
  
  It hasn't worked out that way. 

  The first thing that you need to realise about recruiters is that you are not the customer in this relationship. The recruiter is trying to find a warm body that they can sell to the employer, and your interests don't matter in that equation. They are, basically, pimps. Recruiters will lie, wheedle, and exploit any vulnerability that they can in order to deliver for their employer: your potential new boss. 
  
  In the case of the local Twin Cities labour market, they have an unenviable task. There's a shortage of skilled workers. Anyone that has marketable skills and is sitting around unemployed probably is someone with "issues". These issues could run from horrible personalities, mental health issues, chronic medical problems, to substance abuse. This is compounded by employers with an unrealistic grasp of the labour market, and a view towards their employees as disposable. Most of these companies seem to believe that they can have their pick of dozens of highly-qualified candidates, each of which will crawl on their hands and knees to beg for the position, and will eagerly accept low pay. 
  
  The reality is that everyone is already working (except for those with "issues"), and the employer will have to hire them away from someone else. In the average case, someone has retired and the company needs to replace them. They announce the opening and wait for the line to form at the door the next day. There is no line. Then they consult their "contacts" in the field, or "word of mouth" among current employees, to find great people who are somehow also very desperate. Weeks pass, then months. They try free employment services, such as the State job service. More time passes, the situation becomes critical, and the recruiter is called. 
  
  I should point out that the employer has now created a very bad situation, and they've compounded their problems. Months of work has piled up, their current employees have struggled to handle the workload (for no extra pay), and morale is failing. Anyone that the recruiter finds will walk in to a horrible mess. There will be no time to train them or let them find their way around the company's system. And the other employees will not be inclined to help. 

  On top of that, the expectations of the employer are that this paid recruiter will dig up several miracle-workers that are mysteriously familiar with their company, their software, their culture, and their equipment. They have probably realised that their pay scale is woefully out of sync with the labour market, and they've resigned themselves to increase it. But, at those wages, they will demand the perfect candidate. So, they make the position "contract for hire". This will let them try out the poor victim at a lower wage to determine if this sucker really is the perfect candidate. At this point, the employer has likely tried some of those people with "issues" out of desperation, and this has only hardened their resolve and dug that hole deeper.
  
  At no point does it occur to this employer that they are asking someone to leave a permanent, full-time job with benefits for the chance to possibly gain a permanent, full-time job with benefits -- should the poor sucker "play their cards right". 
  
  And this is the clown that the poor recruiter has to satisfy if they expect to be paid.  
  
  Basically, most of these recruiters are just digging through online resumes on Monster, Indeed, the State database, or ancient resumes the agency has on file. 
  
  And so they end up calling victims such as myself. 
And so begins the stupid and ugly dance of deception. You will get a phone call -- probably to your cell phone while you are at work. It will go like this:

"Are you currently looking for work?" is the first question. In the past, I explained that I'm currently employed but open to new and better opportunities. This is the wrong answer. What the recruiter really means is, "Are you unemployed and desperate for any work whatsoever?". Anything besides a clear and unequivocal "No" will be conveniently 'heard' as, "Yes, I'm desperate to find a new job. Please, please tell me that you have an opening".
 
"I want to tell you about a great opportunity" is the next step. Spoiler alert: no matter how shitty this company is, how low-paying the position, how unrealistic the expectations, it's a "great opportunity" to the recruiter. Basically, this phrase really means that the recruiter is fairly sure that the employer's paycheck won't bounce. 
  
  By remaining on the line, you are strongly implying that you are a desperate sucker ready to be taken advantage of. It doesn't matter what actual words you say. The recruiter will 'hear' something entirely different.
  
"This company is a leader in its field" means absolutely nothing. It's really the recruiter's way of informing you that they know nothing about the position. They may continue with some broad financial information -- "they have revenues of over $6 million", for example. Again, this means nothing in terms of the position. Presumably, it's supposed to imply that the company is stable. This doesn't mean that the position is stable, however. The mere fact that they hired a recruiter means that it isn't a "fly-by-night" outfit because the recruiting agency did sufficient research to assure themselves that the employer could come up with their fee. 
  
  So the recruiter has already wasted your time with meaningless garbage that tells you nothing about the job, the company culture, the opportunities for advancement, the wage, etc. The purpose of this meaningless garbage is to gauge your level of interest. 
  
  If you haven't hung up the phone by this point, the recruiter is feeling pretty good. They've found a "sucker" that just might make them some money. Worst case is that they'll be able to deliver a resume to prove their value to the customer -- which, again, is not you. 
  
"Can you send me a copy of your current resume?" is the next step. This is a sure-fire clue that the recruiter has dug up an old resume on-line, justifying their fee by merely doing a Google search. You, as the victim in this little scheme, will be expected to do the remainder of their work for them. Should you not have an updated resume, you will provide the effort for this process to move forward. The worst case is the recruiter will now have yet another up-to-date resume in their files, making themself more valuable and allowing them to annoy you more effectively in the future with their "great opportunities". 
  
  Even more annoying is when you have provided multiple up-to-date resumes to this agency in the past. Either that information has been kept by the previous recruiters for their own uses, or the recruiter has not even bothered to check the agency's own files. Providing yet another copy is stupid. At a minimum, the recruiter is merely trying to determine how big of a sucker you are. Any updated information is highly likely to be used by the recruiter in their future attempt to wheedle you into spending time in an interview. 
  
  If you still haven't hung up the phone, ask them where their information shows you as working last. If it's very old, you're not dealing with a good recruiter and you should hang up. If it's up-to-date, then they are wasting your time and you are merely confirming their suspicion that you are desperate for work by sending them a duplicate. Either lie to them and promise to send them a new copy (but don't) or ask them to work with the information that they already have. 
  
  In future conversations, the recruiter will lie relentlessly. They will not reveal the name of the employer, and they will probably be very vague as to location. I've had recruiters give the location of the potential job as merely "the metro area", when the truth is that the job is in some far-flung suburb with a 40 minute commute each way. Whatever your desired wage, the recruiter is very likely to say that it's "in their range". This means nothing. When push comes to shove, the recruiter will coach the potential employer on how to lie: the employer will "start you out" at a lower wage until you've "proven yourself", or they will talk about the "great benefits" (which are, undoubtedly, merely average) or the chance to rise in the organisation (should you demonstrate that you are sufficiently gullible by taking a pay cut). 
  
  Just keep in mind that you are the one taking all of the risk. If the potential employer isn't confident enough in your ability to handle the job by looking at your resume or posing questions, then they are really just looking at you as a short-term solution until an even bigger sucker comes along. You will have left a steady job with higher pay for a terrible situation that will probably end up with you getting fired. Best of all, the recruiter would then have a truly desperate, highly-skilled sucker that they can shop around to even worse employers. There is no "downside" for the recruiter in this situation. If you manage to last 90 days, the recruiter will get a hefty fee and the agency will look good. And the recruiter will lie to and wheedle both you and the employer to ensure that you don't get fired within that time period. 
  
  Also keep in mind that, if the employer is calling a recruiter, the position has probably been vacant for at least six months. You will be walking into a nightmare. The recruiter will have told the employer that you are absolutely fantastic and are more than up to the challenge; they will tell you nothing about this. There's probably a very good reason that "word of mouth" has failed to find someone, after all. The average person is disinclined to lie to friends in order to get them into a crappy job -- even if there's a "bonus" involved. 
  
  The entire recruiter game is one big con. If the position really was a "great opportunity", there would be little trouble finding someone to fill it. In fact, by taking the position, you are actually just confirming the employer's unrealistic assessment of the labour market and their belief that there's a limitless supply of highly-skilled suckers out there. The employer will happily toss you aside at their convenience, because they now 'know' that the recruiter can easily line up another sucker at will. 
  
  Your best bet is to watch the online job listings. Send a few resumes out to good-sounding prospects. Be up-front and firm about your expected pay and benefits. Ask for details of the benefits. Every place will tell you that they have "great" benefits. "Company-paid medical" doesn't mean a damn thing. If you have vacation built up, tell the employer that you expect to walk in with that same amount of PTO. Refuse to take a pay cut. This is still "early innings" with the employer. Time is on your side. The pressure is on them to get someone hired. You are already employed, after all. If they are stubborn and hold out for a recruiter to find someone, you just dodged a bullet. If they realise that the labour market has changed in the 30 years since they hired their last guy, then they have your name and they can reach you when they decide to be reasonable. 
  
  Nothing about this requires a recruiter.

Trump's war with the media

  It's hard for me to see how Trump's war with the media can possibly pay off. 

The hard-core Republican base severed their ties with the media (and reality) long ago. There really isn't much more room for a boycott from these people to have any effect. And the media seems to be surviving just fine.

Most Trump voters didn't vote for him to take on the media. It was supposed to be about jobs -- and a host of ill-defined other issues such as turning back the clock to the 1950's social order. This is a tiresome diversion from his promised agenda for most of his supporters. 

But more than that, taking on the media is a strategy much more suited for the underdog, not the Party in charge. Republicans now control everything. This idea of an oppressed minority of conservative whites fighting against an authoritarian government is no longer valid. The media casts no votes in the House or Senate. It has no seat on the Supreme Court.

What this comes down to is the weird weakness in all conservative 'solutions'; unanimous applause is always required. 

What Trump seems to be demanding is the total elimination of all criticism. His denunciations are meaningless. If the media has as little credibility as he claims it does, he wouldn't need to declare it the "enemy of the people". It would simply be ignored. 

It's interesting that conservative positions have so radically changed over the past decade or so. Under the Bush Administration, dissent was "tantamount to treason" - it was a major narrative of the 2004 RNC, in fact. "Shut up, that's why!", became the standard conservative retort on forums when the Iraqi occupation was questioned.

Then, under Obama, dissent became one's patriotic duty. It didn't matter if your dissent was based on reality or not, because the mere act of dissent was sacred. Again and again, conservatives and evangelicals wailed about being "silenced" by people simply disagreeing with them or failing to buy their wild assertions without question. 

Now, it seems that we're moving back even further than where The Decider took it. Disagreeing with the Trump Administration is now seen as being dangerous; something that must be stopped for the good of the the country. Dissent is no longer sacred or even patriotic. People who dissent are dismissed as "brainwashed" or worse. Disagreeing with or criticising Trump now seems to mark one as a subhuman enemy beyond redemption or persuasion. It's exactly the mindset one would find in a dictatorship. 

A significant fraction of Trump voters cast their ballots only reluctantly for him. Others thought that he "didn't really mean" the things that he said. If Trump's popularity falters, the unanimous applause disappears and he moves into Dubya territory. Trump's war on the media and against dissent is an existential battle. 

If anything really defines the Republican political agenda it's "whatever pisses off the libs". In reality, Trump needs the media to convey the wailing and gnashing of teeth of "the libs" in reaction to his policies. 

What he also needs is the equivalent of stormtroopers to physically beat, intimidate, and 'disappear' "the libs". It remains to be seen if the majority of Trump voters would support this, though. 

It also seems likely that a new major war will be initiated under his Administration. Such military action would undoubtedly be ill-conceived, poorly planned, and weakly justified. The economic consequences would be disastrous. China would be unwilling to loan the vast sums needed to finance the action. Our allies are exhausted from the current conflicts. Conscription would not be unthinkable, and most are unwilling to sacrifice their offspring for Trump's ego -- much less trust them to a military that he commands. 

In such a case, dissent would be dealt with harshly by a Trump Administration -- for as long as it could get away with it, of course. The internet has changed the media, and it's not nearly as simple to silence dissent as it was during the Nixon years. 

The midterm elections will be a crucial test of how solid Trump's mandate is. The GOP usually does well in midterms, but the real test will be how closely the Party aligns itself with Trump. Trump remaining in "campaign mode" could have negative consequences for his support, especially if his supposed agenda is stalled or discredited.

10/16 polling update

   Rasmussen is still the outlier once again.The same pollster that showed Romney leading on Election Eve is now showing Trump leading by roughly the same margin. Oh, but those "undecideds" are this bogus pollster's excuse! If Clinton wins, it's because the undecideds broke for her. 
  Undecided voters almost always split relatively evenly, so this is a BS argument to make. 

 Once again, Rasmussen sees an electorate that is much more conservative than actual elections indicate.

Mexico is NOT paying for Trump's wall

  Nearly $25 billion flows into Mexico every year from foreign countries. Trump falsely claims that this money is all from the U.S, and all from illegal aliens. It's a crucial part of Mexico's economy, and they have a strong incentive to have that continue.

In the memo, Trump said he would threaten to change a rule under the USA Patriot Act antiterrorism law to cut off a portion of the funds sent to Mexico through money transfers, commonly known as remittances. The threat would be withdrawn if Mexico made “a one-time payment of $5-10 billion” to pay for the border wall, he wrote.

 This is a really stupid idea, presented in an extremely simplistic way. Trump proposes to "impound all remittance payments from illegal wages". How do you do that? How do you determine which wages are illegal? If the government knew that someone was working here illegally, they would deport them. Not coincidentally, those "illegal wages" would no longer be earned, and Mexico would not get any further "remittances" anyway. 

  This is like proposing a plan that bans all heroin dealers from buying a new car. If you already know someone is a heroin dealer, they'll be jailed and they won't need a new car. It's not going to induce people to stop dealing heroin. 

  But suppose that this plan were to work. Mexico pays for the wall. Illegal immigration is halted. Mexico loses all of these "remittances" anyway, because nobody is working illegally to send money back to Mexico. And, if illegal immigration isn't halted, then why build the wall? Even dumber, Trump promises to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. There goes the "remittances"! 

  There's no way that this would make any financial sense for Mexico, if Trump's plan worked flawlessly. 

  On a practical level, you can't stop all payments across the border. What about American retirees living in Mexico? What about American businesses operating in Mexico? What about someone's kid who gets robbed in Tijuana and needs plane fare home?

To explain how he would have the standing to pursue his aggressive strategy, Trump begins by citing a provision in the Code of Federal Regulations that sets the standards for financial institutions in identifying their customers.

   Okay, so now we're talking about requiring anyone wanting to get a money order or wire transfer to show a passport. A Social Security card isn't good enough, because most illegal aliens have those (albeit falsified). How many documented citizens will be willing to take the risk for a cousin or other family member? Probably a lot. Others will do it for profit.

  But money crosses borders even easier than drugs. This opens up a huge market for organised crime. We can pretty much assume that Mexico won't co-operate in the investigation of money transfers. An individual can carry up to $10k in cash across the border -- no questions asked. Put a "bank" on the Mexican side of the border and American citizens can walk the money across, where it is then distributed exactly as if it were a money order. Americans can set up phony "businesses" in Mexico and transfer money from their American "owners". American "tourists" can make "purchases" of nothing at all. All of this would be done for a cut of the money, in the same way that banks deal with legitimate money orders. 

  So now we're talking about employing an army of forensic accountants, plus expensive prosecutions and investigations. And the big pay-off would be swiping some poor person's meagre earnings. Mexico has nothing to lose either way. Major money laundering operations would be set up to facilitate money transfers. Bribes would be paid. These operations would soon encompass other illegal activities, and Mexico would have a strong incentive to look the other way. 

  Throughout all of this, Trump's Administration would spend enormous sums in order to coerce Mexico to pay only slightly more. And the U.S. would be forced to continue doing it, year after year. The wall wouldn't be paid for, so we'd have all of those expenses, too. And the tightening of money transfers would encourage more illegal immigration. 

  Meanwhile, law-abiding Americans and businesses would pay more for financial services and be subject to absurd scrutiny. I don't see this as being very popular.
  

Trump and the MNGOP

  The Trump campaign has finally hired a campaign manager...in early August! Mike Lukach has stepped up to become the sacrificial lamb and future scapegoat for Trump's overwhelming loss here. Lukach isn't even from Minnesota. He's an itinerant campaign monkey that moves wherever the grift is good -- the perfect symbol of his chosen candidate. 

  The MNGOP has been surprisingly hesitant to embrace Trump. Usually, going "all in" on a strident loser would be something that the MNGOP would do in a heartbeat. Tom Emmer is the only elected Republican making a show of endorsing Trump. Emmer blew a tight race for Governor several years ago, and bankrupted the MN GOP with the recount costs. Now he holds the Sixth District, an R+6 gig that anyone besides Bachmann can hold cheaply and perpetually. Supporting Trump won't cost him in the Sixth, but it really limits his future hopes for U.S. Senate or Governor. Emmer, whether he likes it or not, will be tied to everything Trumpian in a state-wide election. I'm really hoping that Lukach can get Emmer on record with several juicy pro-Trump statements. 

  From the last election in 2014, and the current campaign, it's become painfully obvious that the MNGOP sees its future as the Party of rural MN. In 2014, the Party ran almost exclusively on an urban vs. rural rhetoric. They promised to de-fund the cities and spend vast amounts on roads in rural Minnesota. When all was said and done, they ended up with pretty much the same amount spent on rural roads as before their election. And the urban areas weren't de-funded, because about 60% of the State's voters live in the metro area. 

  This is just the latest incarnation of a MNGOP that seems to be constantly hitting the "reset' button and re-inventing itself. 

  Remember, in 2010 the MNGOP was all about evangelical causes and Tea Party craziness. Tim Pawlenty announced his support of crazy 10th Amendment 'solutions'. They put a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot to ban same-sex marriage. And it all collapsed. 

  Next, the MNGOP was all about "libertarian" causes. Never mind all of that "government pushing Christianity down your throat" stuff that they screamed two years earlier. Now, it was all about "liberty". As always, "liberty" to conservatives means, "Leave me the hell alone, and come down hard on that other guy that's different from me". Libertarian Kurt Bills lost in a landslide (65/31) to Democrat Amy Klobuchar in the 2012 election. I should note that PPP polled the race as 62/32 just before the election. Pretty damn close.

  Then, in 2014, the Party hit the "reset" button again. Never mind all of that Libertarian nonsense. They never really believed that, anyway. They ran a faceless McFadden against Al Franken, with nothing other than "everybody hates Democrats, right?" as a reason to vote for McFadden. Franken won 53/43 -- not even close. McFadden was a businessman who had never held public office. The only "Tea Party" message in his campaign was an opposition to "Obamacare" - mentioned more as an afterthought than anything. Though McFadden cited God as his campaign manager, he pushed none of the evangelical agenda. 

  Every Republican was absolutely sure that McFadden would win. They had abandoned the craziness. They couldn't lose. Not a single poll showed McFadden winning, but that just proved that the polls were all biased. The local Fox affiliate ran an exit poll just after polls closed showing McFadden winning, and said it was "hardly surprising". Yet, he lost by ten points in the real world.

  Pretty much nobody with brains thought that Dayton would lose re-election in 2014. There wasn't a single poll showing that -- even Rasmussen. Yet, virtually every Republican in Minnesota believed that Jeff Johnson would win, because Dayton was hated...by Republicans. Johnson ran an entirely "base-oriented" campaign. He lost 50/45. That rural base just isn't big enough. 

  That rural base was big enough to win the MNGOP a bare majority in the MN House: 72 seats out of 68 needed. This was based on promises that weren't kept once in office. 

  Minnesota's rural population has remained stagnant while the urban has grown. Three rural counties are actually losing population. 

  As you can see, the MNGOP's big bet on northern Minnesota is a big gamble. Five counties are predicted to lose population. The one growing county is growing because of urban people moving to it. The metro area is gaining population at 2-3 times the rate of most of out-state Minnesota. The Census in 2020 will prompt re-districting to move those blue rural voters into surrounding Districts. 

  Of course, by 2020, the MNGOP will have done yet another about-face. Whatever that make-over will look like, it's certain that they will claim that it's what they always stood for. 

  The MNGOP is trying desperately to lock out-state Minnesota into a hopeless conflict with urban Minnesota. And, when that fails, they will move on to greener pastures and leave rural Minnesota to fend for itself -- much as they did with the evangelicals, libertarians, and Tea Party supporters.

  The rural MN vote isn't really based on economics or policy issues. It's about a deep fear of their 'way of life' changing. But the MNGOP can't prevent that, even if it were real. They can bolster resentment of the urban areas, but they can't stop urban growth and they can't lock the world into the 1950's forever. 

  The extent that Trump succeeds in rural Minnesota will be the extent that rural Minnesota becomes electorally irrelevant. Crazy blow-hards will reign in those districts, but lose in the Legislature. State-wide campaigns will ignore those voters as hopeless. Even the MNGOP won't try to appeal to Trump voters after this election. They're too small, too scattered, and too irrational to make the effort worthwhile. 

  I don't see rural Minnesota joining the "bubble" alternate reality that the Republicans exist in. Nobody wants to live their life perpetually furious and frightened. Being a Republican today, however, requires being "all in". There are no "edges".

 

PPP national poll shows GOP weakness in age demos

  The latest PPP national poll is out. 

While it shows Clinton "only" four points ahead, we should bear in mind that Obama beat Romney by "only" four points. 

From the summary (emphasis added): 

The race is shaping up pretty much as you would expect along demographic lines. Clinton leads 51/36 with women, 82/13 with Hispanics, 91/5 with African Americans, and 57/28 with young voters. Trump leads 48/37 with men, 51/32 with whites, and 51/36 with seniors.

Clinton has a 39/35 advantage with independents. Trump's actually getting more crossover support with 10% of Democrats to Clinton's 7% of Republicans. That's partially because of some Bernie Sanders fans continuing to hold out from giving their support to Clinton- among Democrats and independents with a favorable opinion of Sanders 79% are voting for Clinton to 7% for Trump, 3% for Stein, and 2% for Johnson with 9% remaining undecided. If Clinton could even win over just half of those folks her support would go up to 49% and give her an 8 point lead.

 I'm unsure how many supposed "Sanders supporters" are even really Democrats to begin with. It's become apparent over the course of the primary that a lot of "independents" (i.e. Republican-leaning voters) comprise the Sanders camp. These are voters that hate Trump because he's not a 'real' Republican, and hate Clinton because 'real' Republicans are required to hate all Clintons by definition. Winning over half seems possible, though. 

  As for the 10% of Democrats supporting Trump, that doesn't mean much. First, PPP showed 13% of Democrats supporting Romney on the eve of the 2012 election, and 13% also in October. So Trump's 10% of Democrats is actually worse than Romney's losing share. Second, this was supposed to be Trump's big edge -- his appeal to "Reagan Democrats". 

  Clinton leading with independents is important, because Romney lead independents by by five points in October 2012 -- and still lost. 

  As far as the stupid "oversampling" (a/k/a "unskew") argument, the D/R/I of this latest national poll was 39/34/27. Current polling shows: 

   That's a current D/R/I of 38/35/25. So no "oversampling" of Democrats. 

  But what's more interesting in the bigger picture is the age demographics. 
On the generic ballot, it's clear that senior citizens are the Republican Party's key age demo. 

  This isn't a "head-to-head" (h2h) between candidates. This is a hypothetical preference for President assuming ideal candidates. In other words, it's a best-case scenario for Republicans. I should note that PPP showed seniors breaking 52/45 in Romney's favour on the eve of the election. Senior citizens were the exact same proportion of the sample in both polls: 20%. 
This means that the GOP gets 10.6% of the electorate (.20 * .53) by winning seniors with a 15-point advantage. It might also be important to note that PPP ended up with a 50/47 result in Obama's favour on Election Eve. The actual result was 51/47. So, pretty accurate. 

  As you can see from the age breakdown on the current generic ballot, all other age groups either break evenly or go to the Democrats. The average life expectancy is around 82. A whole lot of this demographic won't make it to 2020, and they'll be replaced by voters who aren't nearly as favourable to the GOP. The age demo will still favour Republicans, but the GOP can't afford to lose any voters -- much less their key demographic. If only 47% of seniors favour the GOP, that will bring their share of the electorate down to 9.4%. A Party that is losing national elections by four points can't afford to lose nearly an entire point and still hope to win. 

  Some attrition will also take place in the 46-65 age group, as well. This split demo will be diluted by voters favouring the Democrats by six points. I wouldn't expect any kind of dramatic shift over four years, but the split in the 45-65 group will probably be slightly in favour of the Democrats. 

  You also have to consider the influence that these older voters have on the younger voters, especially in 'red' states. Without these seniors snarling and bellowing at their adult children about the evil Democrats, the impact of right-wing propaganda will lessen. The culture war talking points that the GOP uses to animate much of their base will fall on increasingly disinterested ears.  

  All of this assumes, of course, that the GOP will continue on their same course. There isn't much hope of that course changing. The Party "establishment" has been thoroughly discredited in the primary, and will undoubtedly be blamed by the Republican base for Trump's loss -- just as they were blamed for Romney's loss. With the Party organisation no longer having credibility, all of the Republican 'bench' having firmly tied themselves to the current course, and the base firmly entrenched in a bubble reality alternating between fear and outrage, where will any new course originate from? 

  We've seen a remarkable polarisation in the electorate. Most of the Republican base now lives in a different reality than the rest of nation, and this reality is built on conspiracy theories and 'facts' that are no longer reconcilable as "differences of opinion". You are either "in" or you are "out", and there aren't any new people getting "in". There is no effort made to persuade outsiders to join this bubble reality. Anyone who isn't already "in" is presumed to be evil or stupid, or both. This base simultaneously crows arrogantly that they are the majority and whimpers that they are also an oppressed minority. It's more like a tribal identification or religious indoctrination than it is a coherent political movement. Fads and heroes are embraced and soon forgotten, with no memory that they were ever embraced in the first place. Abandoned talking points are picked up years later and shouted anew as fervently as if they were never abandoned at all. 

  Over all of this is a strange desire to return to the past -- a past that is hazily misremembered and cast in black and white. More or less, this past is the 1950's -- nearly sixty years ago. It's little wonder that senior citizens are the key demographic of the Party, with this in mind. It's not only a time of strictly-enforced conformity (giving the lie to the "liberty" narrative), but also a time when minorities had very little in the way of rights or dignity. Oddly, it's also a time when labour unions were strong, but that part is left out of the hazy picture.

  Nobody under the age of 50 remembers this period with glowing fondness, mostly because they weren't alive back then. For these voters, it was a time of racial segregation. It was a time when you couldn't be an individual, but were tightly locked in someone else's vision of how to dress, speak, behave, and which opinions to hold. It was time when gays lived in quiet desperation, terrified of losing their jobs, being brutally beaten, and despised by all if their terrible secret ever got out. It was a time of few career options for women, and all of them were low-paid occupations. You could beat your wife (or most women, for that matter) with impunity. You could beat, cheat, or insult any minority without consequence. Basically, if you weren't a white male, it was an "anything goes" situation. There was no shortage of craven cretins eagerly willing to enforce this social order with their fists, their economic power, or with ropes and guns in other cases. And good luck if you weren't a Christian. 

  If this sounds like a "tough sale" to voters, it is. Were a sufficient number of Republicans to actually think the consequences through, most would reject a return to this social order. Instead, they know it can never happen so it becomes an aspirational goal and an element of tribal identification. In this purpose, it can only produce frustration and disenchantment with those that they elect, because they can never possibly deliver a return to the Golden Age. 

  The Republican Party has engineered a disastrous long-term situation for itself in order to achieve a short-term gain. And that short-term gain has instead become little more than a holding action. It virtually guarantees that elected Republican office-holders will have a short political life, because they can't enact the crazy brand of change that their base so strongly desires. It creates a revolving door of crazy, and even more crazy, candidates making bigger and bigger promises while failing miserably to get results. It burns through the 'bench' of electable options and leaves the Party with only clowns to run. And so we see the current desire for "outsider" candidates on the Right, whose lack of appeal outside of the Party base in seen as a major asset. 

  Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, a candidate simply has to be "not crazy". This sets a low bar, and leads to disillusionment and frustration with a perceived "lack of progress" in that Party's base. The fervent Republican hope is that their "holding action" can put enough stress on the Democratic Party that it will begin to splinter and put forward unelectable candidates in its own right. But the age demographics, inherent instability, and gaping schisms within the Right don't give the GOP sufficient time for this strategy to play out. The Democratic Party is well-accustomed to coalition politics, while the Republican Party is not. It chafes at the compromises made as a coalition, and has lost its vaunted "unified messaging". It's very identity has become lost and subsumed into little more than an "anti-Democrat" Party with no real principles of its own. 

  It's a political game of "chicken" that the GOP can't win, nor can it afford to lose. When the string is played out, the Republican Party will be left in a shambles. The Democrats will have free reign to shape the narrative. And most Republicans will 'forget' that ever believed any of the stuff that they now hold to be Sacred Truth. But the nation will have squandered a decade in a generational tantrum.