Historical Comey Testimony

Ex-FBI director, James Comey, made a testimony on June 8, 2017, about Trump’s objection of justice investigation in front of US Senators. I write this summary to remember this historical moment in the future.

First of all, Senators overlooked the most important item in the testimony: If Trump admitted in public that he fired Comey to influence the investigation of Russian related to his campaign and the election, it’s a direct objection of justice! There is no need to argue the intention of the word “hope” that Trump used in their private meetings.

Second, the focus of the testimony is about Trump’s objection of the justice. Trump’s attorney misled US people by emphasizing Trump not being investigated for the Russian intervention. They are not the same topic. The attorney and the administration are distracting people from the center of the testimony again by making alternate fact.

Third, beyond the testimony, rational people would understand that Trump is lying about the truth all the time. With this, how do we educate our kids about honesty now? What promise can Trump’s words provide anymore?

Forth, Senator McCane was confused between Clinton email incident and Russian meddling US election. Clinton email incident was completely investigated and no crimes were found. That’s why it was closed. Clinton email incident did not involve Russian, although Democratic Party email leaks are Russian related. And, the reason that Trump’s campaign being still open investigation is because of Russian involvement. These are different and separated criminal investigations, and the same reason why one is closed but the other is still open, even if they happened during the same 2016 US election.

Fifth, some senators claimed Comey leaking classified documents, which is not correct. Comey did not hand out classified “documents”. He handed out the “recollection” of his memory of his conversation with Trump to a reporter as a private citizen after he got fired so it’s a debate about whether his memory note written later could be counted as classified or not.

Reference:

Clapper: Democracy ‘under assault’

Donald Trump’s win was predicted by Allan Lichtman — the US election expert who has called every result since 1984

Clapper: Democracy ‘under assault’

I would like to cite this article, because I believe it represents a very importance event of our history, and will be echoed and remembered by people for decades.

Basically, the best winning strategy is simply to let your enemy die from within. I hate to say it, but Russia actually gets it perfectly right this time and lets the US destroy itself slowly.

WASHINGTON — American democracy is “under assault” on separate fronts from President Donald Trump and Russia, the former U.S. intelligence chief warned Sunday, expressing dismay over the abrupt firing of FBI director James Comey amid a probe into Moscow’s meddling in U.S. elections and possible ties with the Trump campaign.

As Trump works to fast-track Comey’s successor, lawmakers from both parties urged him to steer clear of any politicians for the job and say he must “clean up the mess that he mostly created.”
“I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally — and that’s the big news here, is the Russian interference in our election system,” said James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. “I think as well our institutions are under assault internally.”

When he was asked, “Internally, from the president?” Clapper said, “Exactly.”

Clapper spoke after Trump’s sudden firing of Comey last week, which drew sharp criticism because it came amid the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. Clapper said America’s founding fathers had created three co-equal branches of government with checks and balances, but with Trump as president, that was now “eroding.”

The White House had no immediate comment. No White House aide appeared on the Sunday news shows, leaving Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to defend Trump. “The president is the CEO of the country. He can hire and fire whoever he wants,” she said.

Reference: Clapper: US govt ‘under assault’ by Trump after Comey firing

Keys to the White House

This is a very important article about election prediction. Of course, you have to be a historian to make a proper judgement with a deep understanding of the underlying process. It is evaluated by human, not machine.

His simple linear regression beats all modern machine learning algorithms today!

The Keys to the White House, developed by Allan Lichtman, is a system for predicting the popular-vote result of American presidential elections, based upon the theory of pragmatic voting. America’s electorate, according to this theory, chooses a president, not according to events of the campaign, but according to how well the party in control of the White House has governed the country. If the voters are content with the party in power, it gains four more years in the White House; if not, the challenging party prevails. Thus, the choice of a president does not turn on debates, advertising, speeches, endorsements, rallies, platforms, promises, or campaign tactics. Rather, presidential elections are primarily referenda on the performance of the party holding the White House.

V = 37.2 + 1.8 * True = 37.2 + 1.8 * 7 = 49.7

Reference: Keys to the White House

Donald Trump’s win was predicted by Allan Lichtman — the US election expert who has called every result since 1984

Political analyist concluded ‘Hillary doesn’t fit the bill’ partly because she lacked Barack Obama’s charisma. Allan Lichtman, a political analyst who has correctly predicted the results of every presidential election since 1984, correctly foresaw that Mr Trump would be the 45th US President.

Unlike many experts who fixated on Mr Trump’s controversial campaign when assessing the election outcome, Professor Lichtman’s calculations largely focused on the incumbent party’s potential for another victory based on 13 key assessments. The system entails “mathematically and specifically” measuring the performance of the party in office. It is a historically based prediction system. He derived the system by looking at every American presidential election from 1860 to 1980.

One of his keys is whether or not the sitting president is running for re-election, and right away, [the Democrats] are down that key.

Another one of his keys is whether or not the candidate of the White House party is, like Obama was in 2008, charismatic. Hillary Clinton doesn’t fit the bill.

Check out the articles below for details of his calculation:

 

Who got it right? These 3 unusual, unlikely things predicted Trump’s win

Earlier this week, CBS News profiled five strange and unexpected things that have correctly predicted the results of the presidential election for decades. Now, it seems, three of those five predictors were right — forecasting Donald Trump would be the 45th president of the United States.

  • A mystic monkey in Changsha, China.
  • The “Halloween mask index” had Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton, 55 to 45 percent.
  • The American University professor Allan Lichtman.

Reference: Who got it right? These 3 unusual, unlikely things predicted Trump’s win

Winner and Looser of 2016 US Presidential Election

Well, this morning, everyone should already know the winner and looser of the 2016 US presidential election. So, based on the spirit of this blog, let’s look at the winner and looser in infographic and predictive analytics as a result of the 2016 US presidential election.

Winner: Google Election

Google made it so easy to understand election status and results in one simple page with tabs for overview, president, senate, house, .., etc. The bar between the two presidential candidates is so clear that we know who is winning and who is catching up, as well as how many electoral votes are needed to win.

google-dashboard

I especially like the semi-transparent red and blue to indicate the majority stakeholders by states and the status of swing states in the lower part of the dashboard. In contrast to what Google is doing, other media does not use the semi-transparent colors for the remaining states so it becomes less clear who would win the rest of the electoral votes and is difficult to see the trend.

nbc-dashboard

On the other hand, the bar between the candidates in the Google dashboard diffuses the bias introduced by the area chart of the US map (implying large areas having more electoral votes).

The only item I would add to the Google election dashboard is to apply the semi-transparent colors to the bar between candidates as well. This would make the dashboard perfect.

In summary, Google election dashboard does a excellent job for the US presidential election. It brings clarity to both the status and trend of the election results in a very precise manner. It deserves to be the winner of BI dashboard design for this election.

Looser: Predictive Analytics

Predictive analytics does a very poor job in this presidential election. All predictive models consistently say Mrs. Clinton would win the election over Mr. Trump. As we all know this morning, the prediction is a total failure.

538 is a pretty popular site about predictive analytics. The following image shows you its prediction during the night of the election results. The forecast had been in favor of Mrs. Clinton until 10 PM, when the curve started to switch to the favor of Mr. Trump. And, the switch did not become evident until 11:30 PM (at the big gap where red line above blue line in the lower part of the chart), when some people could already tell the trend before the forecast trend.

538-forecast

However, we probably should not blame predictive analytics for such big failure. It is because the strength of predictive analytics is to predict “major trend”, not a single outcome; and most of our predictive analytics today rely solely on “data” and nothing else.

As I pointed out in my recent blog on my site and KDnuggest site, if predictive analytics is purely based on data without understanding the underlying process, its forecast is subject to noise and bias in the data and could be very inaccurate. This becomes evident during this presidential election. Because all data were bias towards Mrs. Clinton, it predict Mrs. Clinton to win.

In addition, since the presidential election result is a single outcome and involves a lot of human factors which cannot be quantified analytically, predictive analytics may not be the right tool for the prediction at all! The totally failed prediction makes predictive analytics the looser of this election.

Predictive analytics still works well in a controlled context, but may not be the right tool for election prediction unless we are able to (1) quantify human factors and correlations accurately, (2) do not depend solely on data, and (3) fully disclose the prediction errors.