Notebook

Page 1 of 55


0 Comments

Michigan Election Results 2016

It’s that time again. This particular post comes with a heavy heart. Not because my candidate lost–I don’t generally vote major party–but because of what this election says about those who have voted this candidate into office. Giving in to xenophobia, racism, fear, and hatred is unconscionable.

Some might say I contributed to this by voting for a party other than one of the major parties, but I don’t see a principled selection that way. We are not limited to only two candidates–that isn’t how our system works, and I’m happy for it.


President (National, 270 needed)(Sigh)

Hillary Clinton (D)
47.6% / 218 Electoral Votes
Donald Trump (R)
47.5% / 289 Electoral Votes

President (Michigan, 16 EV)

Hillary Clinton (D)
47.3% / 2,239,745
Donald Trump (R)
47.6% / 2,255,356 Votes
Gary Johnson (L) 3.6%
 
Jill Stein (G) 1.1%
 

House District 6

Paul Clements (D)
28.4%
Fred Upton (R)
67.3%
Lorence Wenke (L) 4.9%
 

79th District State Representative

Marletta Seats (D)
38.4%
Kim LaSata (R)
58.7%
Carl G. Oehling (T) 2.8%
 

Reaction

PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS Hell! Brimstone! Fire! I’m not certain what stage of grief I’ve reached, but it’s certainly not acceptance. I underestimated how much people despised Hillary Clinton. I underestimated how much people would accept a man that looked and acted nothing like a presidential individual–speaks his mind was the refrain.

I do not understand.

Appealing to voters with divisiveness and bigotry, as well as a dislike of what Clinton represents, is not the same as sending a message of solidarity and revolution–which is the message I am receiving from some supporters. It means that people didn’t want the status quo. They want what they see as their way of life back and they think the establishment won’t provide it. I can appreciate that voters felt marginalized by what they see as a ruling class that doesn’t understand or represent them–that much is obvious–but I would not gloat or be happy about the fact that this particular candidate is the face of that movement. Trump winning truly does empower those who would further marginalize minority groups and exposes a deeper hatred than I ever guessed was possible. Even if as President he is nothing like that, he rode that wave into office. That in itself is deplorable and shameful.

I accept that our political system is broken and produces results that ignore a great portion of the population’s wants and desires, but that group is ignoring the realities of life and how the world operates. I am truly ashamed of this result.

Face palm
Seriously guys!?

LEGISLATIVE BODIES This is where all of the action is. This is where I’m mostly confused. People used Trump as a vehicle for change–a vote to protest the political system–but they largely kept their reps and senators. This was a mistake of the largest order. Most of the work is done in the House and Senate, while the President helps to set an agenda for the next four years. In this case, Trump’s own party disliked him. We are unlikely to see the sort of massive change those hoping for his election sought.

My districts were no different, and have been historically Republican for as long as I can remember. I really have no other reactions here. This is a national shame in a way that I don’t think Trump supporters or protest voters fully understand.


Information gathered from CNN Election Results and 2016 Michigan Election Results, accessed on November 9th, 2016.








0 Comments

Our ancestors were bold and industrious–they built a significant portion of our energy and road infrastructure more than half a century ago. It would be almost impossible to build the system today. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the infrastructure of our past to travel to our future.

Alex Tabarrok


0 Comments

Coca-Cola Variants With New Packaging Strategy

Coca-Cola is switching gears with a new packaging strategy, according to AdAge. Their focus is going to be on variants of Coca-Cola rather than on separate brands depending on consumer desire.

Earlier this year, Mr. de Quinto told Ad Age that loyal consumers “always have loved the brand Coca-Cola.” But “there are moments when this consumer wants to reduce their sugar intake.” In those cases, Coke was forcing people to buy into a completely separate identify, he explained, referring to Diet Coke and Coke Zero.

He goes on to describe how this strategy implied that the product wasn’t really for everyone–that it wasn’t all inclusive–and that’s an intriguing notion.

Proposed product lineup. Photo from Coca-Cola, used at AdAge

8oz_Glass_One_Brand_line_up

Same family but no different–they’ve changed nothing about the product.

From an aesthetic standpoint, I love this strategy. Everything feels like a product family, the approach is clean, and the rationale surrounding it seems rather intriguing. By positioning these options as variants of Coke, rather than separate products, I wonder if it will create confusion in-store or if this will seem like a natural evolution for consumers?

Overall, I’m curious to see what it looks like when it is introduced later this year.