The Republican Senate and the Democratic House will betray the states that are electorally safe. This will be the smart move. They will try to put extra money and programs into the battleground states.
States like California will be even used to fund legislation to benefit the battleground states.
This political looting could be prevented. The political gridlock could prevent deals from being made. The Senate and House might cancel each other out. They would not want to let the other to look good in the battleground states.
Here is a paraphrasing of a relevant dialog from the Godfather.
Tom Hagen – Do you know who will betray you?
Michael Corleone – Tessio.
Tom Hagen – I always thought it would have been Clemenza.
Michael Corleone – Its the smart move. Tessio was always smarter.
California does have some battleground house districts in the Central Valley. The Central Valley is getting $3.5 billion of federal money for a segment of high-speed rail. This was given to them in a 2010 spending bill.
However, the high-speed rail is becoming more and more of an obvious embarrassment. The money will be allowed to be clawed back. There will be some money that is placed back into the Central Valley in a new program. It will probably be a lot less money. More money has to go to Florida, Ohio and other more important states.
There will be some pretend arguments for programs for the safe states. There will also be some programs that spread the money all around the country relatively evenly.
The Ethanol program does not make sense technologically or economically. However, it does benefit Iowa and Kansas. The states that come up earliest in the presidential campaign.
Background and Context
Based upon an angry but likely representative comment for some people, I have to explain some motivation and perspective. Why is a future and technology focused site having any talk of politics or geopolitics? What is the motivation? The political battles are so intense that there is intense suspicion and reaction to everything.
Spock Was Too Emotional, I am Not Kidding
I am a passionate futurist geek and data nerd. I think I am fairly self-aware, but I know that where I am not self-aware then I will not know it. I know blind spot exists. People will call other people nerds or vulcans. Most of those people are amateur vulcans. I can compartmentalize like Sarek. Spock is half-human and really quite emotional. As I said, I am a super-nerd. Below I will go into some detail. Many will say whoa too much information. You see I am a little self-aware. I am passionate about being dispassionate and I am aware of the irony.
The D vs R question does have some relevance. But emotions are for hyoo-mahns. (On purpose mispronunciation of human. A deeply nerdy joke from DS9 and some other scifi.)
Condensing My Logic Above With Generalization About the Logical Approach
I stated a logical case above. I tried to be entertaining.
First separate from any emotion about D or R. It is NY Yankees vs Boston Red Sox. It is Coke vs Pepsi. It is Ali vs Frasier. Picking horse race winners. Two sides have a contest and they are trying to win. There are rules and forces.
What is the nature of the contest?
Where is the disagreement? Do the parties care more about the ten main battleground states? Is the political focus on 2020 already now? The next election is always the focus. This is like politics 101.
Is 2020 the most important thing for the two parties in the USA. 2020 is the next election. I thought these things would be obvious and everyone would say well of course. I forgot that most people do not pay attention to the mechanics.
Look at all of the political election race websites. Fivethirtyeight.com was famous because they accurately predicted almost all races in 2012.
There is solid D, solid R, likely D, likely R, leaning D, leaning R and tossup.
Many millions and sometimes billions of dollars are spent during the campaign and most gets spent in the tossup or leaning states.
If we are always in campaign mode, then resources, programs and money go into tossup and leaning areas. The closest contests get the focus.
Then voila, the logic of resource management says the smart move is to not only put more into the close areas but to take from the solid areas to put more into the close battles.
Another analogy. The smart general might move more soldiers and tanks to where the closest and toughest battles are. He would not keep forces in areas he has already conquered.
Here I Go Deep- But My Motivations and Integrity Was Challenged
I look at the data and predictions. for predictions do not get distracted by good and bad or right and wrong. Those are important questions but are tangents to what will happen.
The most accurate predictor of political events seems to be mathematician Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. He looks at a particular question of politics or geopolitics.
He tallies up the interested parties and looks at what they are willing to do get their way. He has to be able to honestly look at what groups really want and what they are willing to do to get it.
Bruce can apparently get 90+% accuracy on questions important to the CIA. What will happen in Iran, Noth Korea etc…
This means his methods work. It also means seemingly complex political and geopolitical outcomes can be highly predictability. Part of this is like being able to parse how much of human intelligence is from DNA and how much is from education and wealth and other factors. You have to parse the Nature and Nurture questions down and perform tests. Identifying factors. Parsing how much comes from which source. Determining how much each contributes.
One of my goals is being able to make the right predictions. What will happen? This means being able to split between where technology, technological capability, politics, economics, demographics, environment and science are more important and how the forces factor.
There needs to be a simplification. You can make the case that all of those points matter. However, there are timeframes and dominant forces. If you do not correctly identify the top two dominant forces then you will be wrong. The dynamics of the top two categories of force can usually tell what will happen. What some could think is a technological subject such as high-speed rail is actually about politics, legal, project economics and engineering execution and competence. What gets chosen for a technological project is mainly about who gets paid-off. However, some technology or business with superior technology can be more profitable. They would then have more money to pay off the right decision makers.
The top part of this article about which states get money. I was explaining a prediction based upon a simple calculation of political gravity.
Spock Quote – if I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen.
I am trying to figure out where things will be in 20 years, 50 years, 100 years and 1000 years.
This is the internet so in my 26,000+ articles. There will be frequent accusations that I have the bias or emotions or motivations like other people.
My response is – like other people? Really? I usually do not pull back the curtain to show it. But that is really silly as I showed here.
Emotion and bias are sources of error.
People complain about the frequency of certain subjects. I am trying find where the real technological and economic changes are happening. Some country or people come up more frequently. They are the source of more change.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.