David Neiwart on how the media ignored the troubling connections between Trump and white supremacists and other extremists.
The media focused on Al Gore's sighing and earth tones in 2000, and then they bent over backwards for the lies about Iraq in 2002-3. Thousands died and they still haven't learned exactly what their fucking job is.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Running Out Of Words
Today in US Gov class, kids pressed me on what sort of policies Trump might pursue. I told them as best I could, based on Trump and Paul Ryan's public stances.
They were aghast.
Ending compliance with the Paris Climate Accords, ending Obamacare, ending Clean Air initiatives, abandoning the Iranian nuclear deal, a trade war with Mexico and China, massive regressive tax cuts.
But, you know, #Benghazi and emails and the tenor of her voice...
Clinton was a poor candidate to be running for a third term in an anti-establishment year. James Comey truly ratfucked the election in a way I presumed wouldn't happen. Trump motivated missing voters with naked appeals to racism and cultural resentment.
But if Trump really does embark us on a truly terrifying national nightmare, we can all thank the news media for a bang up job of shedding light on the issues at stake in Decision 2016.
They were aghast.
Ending compliance with the Paris Climate Accords, ending Obamacare, ending Clean Air initiatives, abandoning the Iranian nuclear deal, a trade war with Mexico and China, massive regressive tax cuts.
But, you know, #Benghazi and emails and the tenor of her voice...
Clinton was a poor candidate to be running for a third term in an anti-establishment year. James Comey truly ratfucked the election in a way I presumed wouldn't happen. Trump motivated missing voters with naked appeals to racism and cultural resentment.
But if Trump really does embark us on a truly terrifying national nightmare, we can all thank the news media for a bang up job of shedding light on the issues at stake in Decision 2016.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Day One In Trump's America
Shaun King is keeping a twitter feed of all the shit that's going down.
Looking through it is nauseating.
But there is something else. Most of these acts are acts of drive-by cowardice. Anonymous acts of graffiti, things yelled from passing cars. There are far too many direct confrontations in there, too.
So, here's the challenge, and it's especially a challenge for People Like Me: Every time you see or hear of something like this, you have to rush to the victim's aid. No being coy or letting someone else handle it. I'm terrible about that myself. I have bystander syndrome.
From here out I'm taking a vow. Any time I see racist, sexist, bigoted actions, my first impulse will be, must be, going to support the target of that.
Looking through it is nauseating.
But there is something else. Most of these acts are acts of drive-by cowardice. Anonymous acts of graffiti, things yelled from passing cars. There are far too many direct confrontations in there, too.
So, here's the challenge, and it's especially a challenge for People Like Me: Every time you see or hear of something like this, you have to rush to the victim's aid. No being coy or letting someone else handle it. I'm terrible about that myself. I have bystander syndrome.
From here out I'm taking a vow. Any time I see racist, sexist, bigoted actions, my first impulse will be, must be, going to support the target of that.
Yes, He's Your President
Going from Dubya to Trump is going from C+ Augustus to F You.
I completely share in people's anger and despair and bewilderment. He is not my role model, not my spokesman, not my leader.
But he is my President.
I understand why people are saying this. I want to say it, too. But if you say it, you're engaged in exactly the sort of demonization and division that creates demagogues like Trump.
We don't elect Kings. Trump will enter office, like Bush did, with a minority of the vote total. Bush, being a more or less seasoned politician surrounded by seasoned politicians, spent the first nine months with his head down, not taking highly charged positions until the summer when he announced a stem-cell research ban. His numbers tanked and he lost the trust of the people. Then 9/11 happened. In 2005, Bush and the GOP led off with privatizing Social Security and the Terri Schiavo nightmare. He never recovered, then there was Katrina and the following year the Democrats took control of Congress.
Politics works only when you are engaged with it. That doesn't mean being engaged with only the people you agree with. I was talking with a Taft security guard on the sidelines of our kid's soccer game. He felt that Trump could win. I assured him he was wrong, because data. Who was right? If I hadn't been so eager to show off my erudition I might have learned something that afternoon.
There IS a basket of deplorables that support this guy. There are also a bunch of standard every day Republicans who supported their nominee. There are also people desperate for change of any kind.
Winning the popular vote and losing the election is a nightmare we've had to endure twice in my lifetime. The last time led to a disastrous war and a global depression. I am as tired of this shit as you are.
But simply shutting the other side out won't get us to a place where we can sweep Congress and the White House. Calling all Trump supporters racists and misogynists won't flip them into your camp. Besides that, it's beneath you as a person to lump every individual of a group into the same basket as the worst elements of that group.
Donald Trump is going to be our president. He says everything is a negotiation. OK. Let's negotiate. Let's hold him accountable. March. Protest. Write letters. And when you engage, ENGAGE. Don't simply have competing monologues.
Donald Trump exists because there are a large group of Americans who hate and mistrust elites. That hatred is visceral rather than logical, and expressed itself in an electoral tantrum that will likely crush the global economy and make our country less equal and less welcoming. To change that in two or four years means we have to move enough people past their tantrum and into dialogue.
I completely share in people's anger and despair and bewilderment. He is not my role model, not my spokesman, not my leader.
But he is my President.
I understand why people are saying this. I want to say it, too. But if you say it, you're engaged in exactly the sort of demonization and division that creates demagogues like Trump.
We don't elect Kings. Trump will enter office, like Bush did, with a minority of the vote total. Bush, being a more or less seasoned politician surrounded by seasoned politicians, spent the first nine months with his head down, not taking highly charged positions until the summer when he announced a stem-cell research ban. His numbers tanked and he lost the trust of the people. Then 9/11 happened. In 2005, Bush and the GOP led off with privatizing Social Security and the Terri Schiavo nightmare. He never recovered, then there was Katrina and the following year the Democrats took control of Congress.
Politics works only when you are engaged with it. That doesn't mean being engaged with only the people you agree with. I was talking with a Taft security guard on the sidelines of our kid's soccer game. He felt that Trump could win. I assured him he was wrong, because data. Who was right? If I hadn't been so eager to show off my erudition I might have learned something that afternoon.
There IS a basket of deplorables that support this guy. There are also a bunch of standard every day Republicans who supported their nominee. There are also people desperate for change of any kind.
Winning the popular vote and losing the election is a nightmare we've had to endure twice in my lifetime. The last time led to a disastrous war and a global depression. I am as tired of this shit as you are.
But simply shutting the other side out won't get us to a place where we can sweep Congress and the White House. Calling all Trump supporters racists and misogynists won't flip them into your camp. Besides that, it's beneath you as a person to lump every individual of a group into the same basket as the worst elements of that group.
Donald Trump is going to be our president. He says everything is a negotiation. OK. Let's negotiate. Let's hold him accountable. March. Protest. Write letters. And when you engage, ENGAGE. Don't simply have competing monologues.
Donald Trump exists because there are a large group of Americans who hate and mistrust elites. That hatred is visceral rather than logical, and expressed itself in an electoral tantrum that will likely crush the global economy and make our country less equal and less welcoming. To change that in two or four years means we have to move enough people past their tantrum and into dialogue.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
One Pathway
I was looking at the Senate map in 2018 and 2020. That was the untold tragedy last night - losing those winnable Senate seats in PA, OH, FL, AZ and WI. It wasn't JUST the White House we lost. We lost a chance to reshape the Senate, six years after the Tea Party wave. Now you have to wait another 6 years. If Trump completely shits the bed from the start - and that's not impossible - you still only make a dent in the House in 2018, if you're lucky. You're really looking at 2020 before you can flip any of the three.
What sort of damage will be done by then?
Many times today, I have been recalled to my whiteness and maleness. Partly because I look at every dude in a pickup truck and wonder just who's behind the wheel. As someone Tweeted: "That feeling you've had for the last fifteen minutes? Welcome to feeling like a minority." More than anything, I know that my whiteness and maleness protects me from what could be some of the worst effects of a Trump Administration.
I also know that living in Connecticut insulates me from the worst effects. I'm watching protests on CNN in cities across the country. Cities. Blue states.
For years, liberalism has defined itself in its actions via the national government. Civil rights legislation and the Great Society. The Affordable Care Act. I wonder if the energy turns now to the states and localities that are already blue.
My wife and I had students come in with questions, and all of them were along the lines of "The Electoral College? WTF?" So we talked about state compact groups. It occurred to me that state compacts make so much sense.
My biggest worry is frankly environmental policy. Tax policy will be a nightmare, people will suffer under the Ryan budget, but we will find a way to muddle through. Once Trump and his minions get loosed upon the EPA, we are truly cooked.
However, it seems like this is an opportunity for states to join together to set their own standards. Why can't California, Oregon and Washington come together and create fuel efficiency standards? If they can reach out and join New York, Pennsylvania and New England, there isn't an automaker in the country who would make two sets of cars - one for the compact states and one for the non-compact states. Similar attempts could be made on green energy policy or even possible infrastructure projects.
One obvious and fatal flaw that was exposed last night was geographic sorting. There are a shit-ton of Democrats in cities and college towns, and very few anywhere else. What I am proposing might very well make that worse. In some ways, it is the first logical step towards breaking up the United States.
But these are huge issues we face that go beyond economics. It goes towards the future of our planet. Global warming scares the shit out of me. Trump will accelerate that warming, just as there was some evidence that we were starting to slow it.
State compacts among the blue states might be the best way to tackle those issues so that America doesn't return to becoming the world's biggest polluter.
What sort of damage will be done by then?
Many times today, I have been recalled to my whiteness and maleness. Partly because I look at every dude in a pickup truck and wonder just who's behind the wheel. As someone Tweeted: "That feeling you've had for the last fifteen minutes? Welcome to feeling like a minority." More than anything, I know that my whiteness and maleness protects me from what could be some of the worst effects of a Trump Administration.
I also know that living in Connecticut insulates me from the worst effects. I'm watching protests on CNN in cities across the country. Cities. Blue states.
For years, liberalism has defined itself in its actions via the national government. Civil rights legislation and the Great Society. The Affordable Care Act. I wonder if the energy turns now to the states and localities that are already blue.
My wife and I had students come in with questions, and all of them were along the lines of "The Electoral College? WTF?" So we talked about state compact groups. It occurred to me that state compacts make so much sense.
My biggest worry is frankly environmental policy. Tax policy will be a nightmare, people will suffer under the Ryan budget, but we will find a way to muddle through. Once Trump and his minions get loosed upon the EPA, we are truly cooked.
However, it seems like this is an opportunity for states to join together to set their own standards. Why can't California, Oregon and Washington come together and create fuel efficiency standards? If they can reach out and join New York, Pennsylvania and New England, there isn't an automaker in the country who would make two sets of cars - one for the compact states and one for the non-compact states. Similar attempts could be made on green energy policy or even possible infrastructure projects.
One obvious and fatal flaw that was exposed last night was geographic sorting. There are a shit-ton of Democrats in cities and college towns, and very few anywhere else. What I am proposing might very well make that worse. In some ways, it is the first logical step towards breaking up the United States.
But these are huge issues we face that go beyond economics. It goes towards the future of our planet. Global warming scares the shit out of me. Trump will accelerate that warming, just as there was some evidence that we were starting to slow it.
State compacts among the blue states might be the best way to tackle those issues so that America doesn't return to becoming the world's biggest polluter.
What Next?
Everyone wants to know the answer to that question.
The rhetoric of this campaign was apocalyptic and it's natural to assume that the rhetoric will lead to the reality. And while there is no doubt that this is the scariest moment in the history of our body politic since Nixon and the scariest moment for the world since Able Archer nearly triggered a nuclear war, there is also some small reassurance that institutions don't bend to a man.
We don't elect kings.
There is no doubt that Trump has authoritarian tendencies. There is no doubt that the office of the President offers him opportunities to express that authoritarianism. But the very structure of our government was founded on the idea that you can thwart the ambition of a would-be king by creating institutions that balance each other.
Trump is a massive, massive wild card. He has no attention to detail, no interest in policy. We literally have no idea what he will do as president. Will he turn the reins over to Giuliani, Christie and Gingrich? Quite probably. Will he be a rubber stamp for the extreme fiscal policies of Paul Ryan and the extreme religious conservative policies of Mike Pence? Quite probably. I think it's fair to say that America will look a lot like Kansas in a few years. And that's not great.
There is a raging argument about whether Trump's election was entirely about racism and sexism on the part of an aging white, male population. I think in part it clearly was.
But part of the story - and this extends beyond the US - is that there is a backlash to "the way things are" that is taking place at the ballot box. Brexit and Trump are twins. The good news is - and I mean this sincerely - this revolution is currently done without bullets and barricades.
Whether they were white nationalists or just disaffected whites, the Trumpenproletariat just decided to give matches and gasoline to an arsonist. Be clear: THAT WAS THE PLAN. They want to burn the fucking thing down.
But lighting a fire is easy. Controlling that fire is hard. Much of Washington is made of marble and hard to burn. I don't believe the foundations of our government will fall. I believe we are headed for recession and not some small violence. I believe we will stumble back into a pointless war.
I also believe that after we've mourned and shaken off our shock, that we have to start fighting for a better world. The entire House is up for re-election in two years. That's the first goal.
The rhetoric of this campaign was apocalyptic and it's natural to assume that the rhetoric will lead to the reality. And while there is no doubt that this is the scariest moment in the history of our body politic since Nixon and the scariest moment for the world since Able Archer nearly triggered a nuclear war, there is also some small reassurance that institutions don't bend to a man.
We don't elect kings.
There is no doubt that Trump has authoritarian tendencies. There is no doubt that the office of the President offers him opportunities to express that authoritarianism. But the very structure of our government was founded on the idea that you can thwart the ambition of a would-be king by creating institutions that balance each other.
Trump is a massive, massive wild card. He has no attention to detail, no interest in policy. We literally have no idea what he will do as president. Will he turn the reins over to Giuliani, Christie and Gingrich? Quite probably. Will he be a rubber stamp for the extreme fiscal policies of Paul Ryan and the extreme religious conservative policies of Mike Pence? Quite probably. I think it's fair to say that America will look a lot like Kansas in a few years. And that's not great.
There is a raging argument about whether Trump's election was entirely about racism and sexism on the part of an aging white, male population. I think in part it clearly was.
But part of the story - and this extends beyond the US - is that there is a backlash to "the way things are" that is taking place at the ballot box. Brexit and Trump are twins. The good news is - and I mean this sincerely - this revolution is currently done without bullets and barricades.
Whether they were white nationalists or just disaffected whites, the Trumpenproletariat just decided to give matches and gasoline to an arsonist. Be clear: THAT WAS THE PLAN. They want to burn the fucking thing down.
But lighting a fire is easy. Controlling that fire is hard. Much of Washington is made of marble and hard to burn. I don't believe the foundations of our government will fall. I believe we are headed for recession and not some small violence. I believe we will stumble back into a pointless war.
I also believe that after we've mourned and shaken off our shock, that we have to start fighting for a better world. The entire House is up for re-election in two years. That's the first goal.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
I'm Nauseous And At A Loss For Words
So I'll just outsource this:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/this-article-is-prescient
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/this-article-is-prescient
Own It Paulie
The Zombie Eyed Granny Starver says that the GOP is not Trump's party. As John Scalzi tweeted, that's not what it says on the ballot.
There is a none-zero chance that Trump wins this thing, and people are very loath to count chickens still in their eggs. But it certainly looks like Clinton will win; the Blue Wall will hold and we will be spared the Trumpocalypse.
Whether Trump? Ed at Gin and Tacos has a pretty accurate take on what happens next for the Evergropenfuhrer.
There is a none-zero chance that Trump wins this thing, and people are very loath to count chickens still in their eggs. But it certainly looks like Clinton will win; the Blue Wall will hold and we will be spared the Trumpocalypse.
Whether Trump? Ed at Gin and Tacos has a pretty accurate take on what happens next for the Evergropenfuhrer.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Tomorrow's Autopsy Today
Ezra Klein laments the existing and likely enduring threat to American democracy that Trumpism represents. He builds off Julia Azari's piece on weak parties and strong partisanship. This sentence is critical:
If partisans have lost so much faith in their party establishments, then why are they so much likelier to back whomever their party nominates? The answer, in short, is fear and loathing of the other party.
This is the strong partisanship that Azari mentioned. The GOP can't perform their basic function, which is to coordinate a broad spectrum of political interests into a cohesive whole. This allows a demagogue to hijack the party and then rely on that high level of partisanship to possibly win an election. Trump found the cheat-code at the heart of the GOP: racial panic. It's not about economic pain and dislocation, so much as it's about the fear of those things.
As I've been saying for years, the GOP media environment is soaking in apocalyptic fear-mongering. That creates the environment for a demagogue. Partisanship allows that demagogue access to millions of voters that he otherwise wouldn't have. Consider this quote:
“We’ve got this online media where the profits are driven by controversy and clicks,” Sarah Rumpf, a former Breitbart writer, told Vox. “It’s just an activism problem in general, where it’s easier to fundraise and easier to get members when you can declare an emergency, when you can declare a crisis, when you can identify an enemy.”
And that is where demagogues come from.
What is ultimately worrisome is whether or not - in defending Trump - those voters have now internalized the racism, sexism and xenophobia that defines Trump. Trump won the nomination as an ethno-nationalist. The question is whether he can turn the GOP into an ethno-nationalist party.
Klein summarizes:
The most likely result of tomorrow's election is Clinton winning reasonably comfortably - about 4% of the popular vote - Democrats winning the Senate by a few votes and the House remaining in Republican hands. Those House Republicans will be full of the fearful, angry rabble that created Trump. They will not wish to govern or compromise and the faith we have in our civic institutions will be further tested. Important work will go undone, because the Republican party of Bob Dole and even Ronald Reagan has ceased to exist. What we have instead is a group of people who are terrified of the changes being wrought in their country, so they are engaged in a multi-decades long tantrum that is paralyzing our government.
Clinton will likely win tomorrow. But we are still, in so many ways, already losers.
If partisans have lost so much faith in their party establishments, then why are they so much likelier to back whomever their party nominates? The answer, in short, is fear and loathing of the other party.
This is the strong partisanship that Azari mentioned. The GOP can't perform their basic function, which is to coordinate a broad spectrum of political interests into a cohesive whole. This allows a demagogue to hijack the party and then rely on that high level of partisanship to possibly win an election. Trump found the cheat-code at the heart of the GOP: racial panic. It's not about economic pain and dislocation, so much as it's about the fear of those things.
As I've been saying for years, the GOP media environment is soaking in apocalyptic fear-mongering. That creates the environment for a demagogue. Partisanship allows that demagogue access to millions of voters that he otherwise wouldn't have. Consider this quote:
“We’ve got this online media where the profits are driven by controversy and clicks,” Sarah Rumpf, a former Breitbart writer, told Vox. “It’s just an activism problem in general, where it’s easier to fundraise and easier to get members when you can declare an emergency, when you can declare a crisis, when you can identify an enemy.”
And that is where demagogues come from.
What is ultimately worrisome is whether or not - in defending Trump - those voters have now internalized the racism, sexism and xenophobia that defines Trump. Trump won the nomination as an ethno-nationalist. The question is whether he can turn the GOP into an ethno-nationalist party.
Klein summarizes:
So here, then, is the key failure point in modern American politics, and observing it in action requires looking no further than the Republican Party: Voters’ dislike of their own party has broken the primary process, but fear of the opposition has guaranteed unified party support to the nominee. That means whoever manages to win a flawed competition dominated by the angriest, most terrified partisans ends within spitting distance of the presidency.
Party primaries were traditionally bulwarks against demagogues rising in American politics. Now they are the method by which they will rise.
Here is the frightening takeaway from 2016, even if - as I believe - Clinton wins. There is nothing structural on the GOP side to slow or reverse this process. Trump is too old (and will likely be too unpopular after losing) to win the nomination in 2020. If you're a Republican wanting to win the nomination, would you pattern your campaign on Donald Trump or John Kasich? The "coming civil war" in the GOP has all the power on the side of the Trumpenproletariat and none on the side of Paul Ryan and certainly none on the side of Jeff Flake.The most likely result of tomorrow's election is Clinton winning reasonably comfortably - about 4% of the popular vote - Democrats winning the Senate by a few votes and the House remaining in Republican hands. Those House Republicans will be full of the fearful, angry rabble that created Trump. They will not wish to govern or compromise and the faith we have in our civic institutions will be further tested. Important work will go undone, because the Republican party of Bob Dole and even Ronald Reagan has ceased to exist. What we have instead is a group of people who are terrified of the changes being wrought in their country, so they are engaged in a multi-decades long tantrum that is paralyzing our government.
Clinton will likely win tomorrow. But we are still, in so many ways, already losers.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Asymmetric Knowledge
Liberals are the ultimate Chicken Littles come election time. They constantly seek the defeat that they fear is coming for them. Despite winning the popular vote in every election but one since 1989, Democrats are always convinced it will be Florida 2000 all over again.
Josh Marshall makes a very important point: at this point, most campaigns have more information than we do. Campaigns and media outlets poll for very different reasons. The media want to get a handle on the horse race, so they conduct big polls of the entire country or an entire state and then try and model from there. Competent campaigns are polling to find out who might support them and how can they get those people to the polls.
Part of this is knowing where to send your candidate with 72 hours left in Shitshow 2016. Before we look at that, we have to acknowledge that Trump doesn't run a conventionally competent campaign. The guy stopped polling because he wouldn't pay his pollster. Um....what? Trump is flying blind, whereas Clinton has a map and sonar.
Sometimes a campaign will do appearances in a non-competitive state as a head fake ("Why is Clinton campaigning in South Carolina?"), but usually this close to the election, you go where you need votes. Your campaign - again, if competently run - will send you and you main surrogates to where they can do the most good.
Let's look where Trump is going, again remembering that he's flying sort of blind. He's going to Iowa , a state where he can plausibly win. He's also going to Michigan twice and Pennsylvania twice. He's going to Minnesota. He's going to Virginia. He has no chance there. The swing states that he's visiting are Florida, North Carolina and New Hampshire, and that's one visit each. He's spending more time in Michigan than in Florida. That's insane.
Mike Pence's schedule is only slightly less insane: one trip each to Florida and North Carolina and two to New Hampshire makes sense (but I would send Pence to Iowa and Trump to NH), but two trips to Michigan? Trips to Pennsylvania and Minnesota?
Clinton, meanwhile has a formidable army of surrogates that Trump lacks. Here are some of her campaign events:
Obama: New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan and Philly. Chelsea is doing GOTV throughout Pennsylvania. Tim Kaine covers three events in Wisconsin and then three in Virginia, his home state. Bernie Sanders is hitting Arizona and Nevada. Joe Biden is hitting Pennsylvania, too. Cher is doing a concert in Miami, Jon Bon Jovi is doing one in Charlotte.
But Hillary is the main asset, and where are they sending her? Cleveland (with LeBron), New Hampshire, then North Carolina, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Both campaigns are targeting Pennsylvania and Michigan with a lot of firepower. Meanwhile, there is a poll out from Franklin and Marshall that has Clinton up 11 in PA. Not even Republican polls have him winning there. Why are they in PA? Maybe to win that Senate seat from Pat Toomey?
Michigan is clearly an interesting case. There was on poll that had it tied, but the rest show easy leads for Clinton - and there's no Senate race.
Here's where the election is likely to be decided: New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Nevada. Maybe Wisconsin. Where are the campaigns going?
NH: Trump-3, Clinton-2
NC: Trump-2. Clinton-2
FL: Trump-2, Clinton-2
OH: Trump-0, Clinton-1
NV: Trump-0, Clinton-1
WI: Trump-0, Clinton-3 (or 1, depending on how you count Kaine doing three appearances)
Meanwhile
MI: Trump-4, Clinton-3 (Bill is going to Lansing)
PA: Trump-3, Clinton-4 (with multiple events from Chelsea and Biden)
Clearly, Clinton needs to lock up Michigan and Pennsylvania, because every Trump victory scenario includes winning those states. And she is investing the time and energy to do that.
Why not more time in Florida and North Carolina? Because millions of votes have already been cast there.
It's a very weird map, isn't it?
Trump is trying to make a last minute play for Michigan and Pennsylvania, perhaps because he's worried that he can't win Florida? Normally, I would say that he has some inside polling numbers that suggest he's going to win, but he has no pollster. And the public polling looks grim for him there.
So, what should you be looking for Tuesday night? New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan. Clinton wins those and we don't have to care about Florida or Ohio.
Josh Marshall makes a very important point: at this point, most campaigns have more information than we do. Campaigns and media outlets poll for very different reasons. The media want to get a handle on the horse race, so they conduct big polls of the entire country or an entire state and then try and model from there. Competent campaigns are polling to find out who might support them and how can they get those people to the polls.
Part of this is knowing where to send your candidate with 72 hours left in Shitshow 2016. Before we look at that, we have to acknowledge that Trump doesn't run a conventionally competent campaign. The guy stopped polling because he wouldn't pay his pollster. Um....what? Trump is flying blind, whereas Clinton has a map and sonar.
Sometimes a campaign will do appearances in a non-competitive state as a head fake ("Why is Clinton campaigning in South Carolina?"), but usually this close to the election, you go where you need votes. Your campaign - again, if competently run - will send you and you main surrogates to where they can do the most good.
Let's look where Trump is going, again remembering that he's flying sort of blind. He's going to Iowa , a state where he can plausibly win. He's also going to Michigan twice and Pennsylvania twice. He's going to Minnesota. He's going to Virginia. He has no chance there. The swing states that he's visiting are Florida, North Carolina and New Hampshire, and that's one visit each. He's spending more time in Michigan than in Florida. That's insane.
Mike Pence's schedule is only slightly less insane: one trip each to Florida and North Carolina and two to New Hampshire makes sense (but I would send Pence to Iowa and Trump to NH), but two trips to Michigan? Trips to Pennsylvania and Minnesota?
Clinton, meanwhile has a formidable army of surrogates that Trump lacks. Here are some of her campaign events:
Obama: New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan and Philly. Chelsea is doing GOTV throughout Pennsylvania. Tim Kaine covers three events in Wisconsin and then three in Virginia, his home state. Bernie Sanders is hitting Arizona and Nevada. Joe Biden is hitting Pennsylvania, too. Cher is doing a concert in Miami, Jon Bon Jovi is doing one in Charlotte.
But Hillary is the main asset, and where are they sending her? Cleveland (with LeBron), New Hampshire, then North Carolina, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Both campaigns are targeting Pennsylvania and Michigan with a lot of firepower. Meanwhile, there is a poll out from Franklin and Marshall that has Clinton up 11 in PA. Not even Republican polls have him winning there. Why are they in PA? Maybe to win that Senate seat from Pat Toomey?
Michigan is clearly an interesting case. There was on poll that had it tied, but the rest show easy leads for Clinton - and there's no Senate race.
Here's where the election is likely to be decided: New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Nevada. Maybe Wisconsin. Where are the campaigns going?
NH: Trump-3, Clinton-2
NC: Trump-2. Clinton-2
FL: Trump-2, Clinton-2
OH: Trump-0, Clinton-1
NV: Trump-0, Clinton-1
WI: Trump-0, Clinton-3 (or 1, depending on how you count Kaine doing three appearances)
Meanwhile
MI: Trump-4, Clinton-3 (Bill is going to Lansing)
PA: Trump-3, Clinton-4 (with multiple events from Chelsea and Biden)
Clearly, Clinton needs to lock up Michigan and Pennsylvania, because every Trump victory scenario includes winning those states. And she is investing the time and energy to do that.
Why not more time in Florida and North Carolina? Because millions of votes have already been cast there.
It's a very weird map, isn't it?
Trump is trying to make a last minute play for Michigan and Pennsylvania, perhaps because he's worried that he can't win Florida? Normally, I would say that he has some inside polling numbers that suggest he's going to win, but he has no pollster. And the public polling looks grim for him there.
So, what should you be looking for Tuesday night? New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan. Clinton wins those and we don't have to care about Florida or Ohio.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Some Poli Sci For You
Here's an interesting take on what ails our politics.
Julia Azari basically points out that the old party structure has gone - I would argue that it has mostly flipped. It used to be that the Democratic party was a mess, Will Rogers quipped: "I'm not a member of an organized political party; I'm a Democrat." Today, that appellation applies to the Republicans. They have always been the more disciplined party, but as they have abandoned the Suburban professional for the Exurban Tea Partier they have lost their discipline.
For all the caterwauling over Super Delegates, the Democratic party largely decided along historical norms, while there was some deadenders at the convention, it ran as it should. Azari's article suffers a little from "both sides" but it's overall accurate when it comes to partisanship.
In the 19th century, partisanship was just as high (even if it was less ideological) but party structures were stronger. The reason partisanship was high was because parties could reward their supporters with tangible benefits.
Today, the benefits a party can bring to its constituencies are largely negative. No more taxes. No more deportations. Ideally, the parties should be able to bring tangible benefits to its constituents just as legislators used to be able to bring benefits to their constituents. Now, neither can.
So Republicans and Democrats wind up hating their own party elites almost as much as they hate the other side, though that is incredibly more true of Republicans.
What a mess.
Julia Azari basically points out that the old party structure has gone - I would argue that it has mostly flipped. It used to be that the Democratic party was a mess, Will Rogers quipped: "I'm not a member of an organized political party; I'm a Democrat." Today, that appellation applies to the Republicans. They have always been the more disciplined party, but as they have abandoned the Suburban professional for the Exurban Tea Partier they have lost their discipline.
For all the caterwauling over Super Delegates, the Democratic party largely decided along historical norms, while there was some deadenders at the convention, it ran as it should. Azari's article suffers a little from "both sides" but it's overall accurate when it comes to partisanship.
In the 19th century, partisanship was just as high (even if it was less ideological) but party structures were stronger. The reason partisanship was high was because parties could reward their supporters with tangible benefits.
Today, the benefits a party can bring to its constituencies are largely negative. No more taxes. No more deportations. Ideally, the parties should be able to bring tangible benefits to its constituents just as legislators used to be able to bring benefits to their constituents. Now, neither can.
So Republicans and Democrats wind up hating their own party elites almost as much as they hate the other side, though that is incredibly more true of Republicans.
What a mess.
Friday, November 4, 2016
Diving A Little Shallower
The other day I posted this chart, as to why I think Clinton wins:
I went into the various sub-groups and wondered where this Trump plurality was coming from.
But let's just look at the top-line number today.
In 2000, one week out, polls had George Bush up 3 points. Al Gore outperformed that by 3 points, winning the popular vote.
In 2004, polls had Bush up 2 points over John Kerry. That was roughly where the race ended.
In 2008, polls had Obama up 7 points. That was roughly where the race ended.
In 2012, polls had the race tied. Obama won by 4 points.
So, in the recent past, the polls have either been accurate or under-counted Democratic votes. The Democrats naturally feel like a bunch of Chicken Littles when it comes to elections, especially post-2000. Because the networks called Florida for Gore, then Bush, then no one, and because of the controversies surrounding the recount, Democrats are always expecting the worst.
But on election day, Al Gore outperformed the polls. Four years ago, Obama outperformed the polls. At no time has a Democrat underperformed his poll numbers. Some of this, I expect, has to do with poll aggregations that include shitty, shitty polls like Rasmussen and ARG. Now, the model for aggregating means you include all of them, because even a shitty, shitty poll can include data others are missing. If you're including Rasmussen, you're basically tilting your aggregation, because Rasmussen are a bunch of Republican hacks, whose entire polling purpose is to provide hope for Republicans, so they don't get discouraged and stay home. (I'm kidding, but only slightly.)
Obviously, four years ago, Romney's team had polling that showed them winning and they were stunned when they lost. Again, that just means they had shitty, shitty polling. Maybe, this time, it's the Democrats who have shitty, shitty polling, but traditionally, they don't. Democrats don't live in the Fox Bubble of make-believe news.
Finally, it's all about Get Out The Vote. By all accounts, the Clinton team - staffed by Obama's old crew - is turning out those early votes in good numbers. Trump doesn't really have a GOTV apparatus. If it really is that close, GOTV is everything.
UPDATE: Also, too - THIS.
But let's just look at the top-line number today.
In 2000, one week out, polls had George Bush up 3 points. Al Gore outperformed that by 3 points, winning the popular vote.
In 2004, polls had Bush up 2 points over John Kerry. That was roughly where the race ended.
In 2008, polls had Obama up 7 points. That was roughly where the race ended.
In 2012, polls had the race tied. Obama won by 4 points.
So, in the recent past, the polls have either been accurate or under-counted Democratic votes. The Democrats naturally feel like a bunch of Chicken Littles when it comes to elections, especially post-2000. Because the networks called Florida for Gore, then Bush, then no one, and because of the controversies surrounding the recount, Democrats are always expecting the worst.
But on election day, Al Gore outperformed the polls. Four years ago, Obama outperformed the polls. At no time has a Democrat underperformed his poll numbers. Some of this, I expect, has to do with poll aggregations that include shitty, shitty polls like Rasmussen and ARG. Now, the model for aggregating means you include all of them, because even a shitty, shitty poll can include data others are missing. If you're including Rasmussen, you're basically tilting your aggregation, because Rasmussen are a bunch of Republican hacks, whose entire polling purpose is to provide hope for Republicans, so they don't get discouraged and stay home. (I'm kidding, but only slightly.)
Obviously, four years ago, Romney's team had polling that showed them winning and they were stunned when they lost. Again, that just means they had shitty, shitty polling. Maybe, this time, it's the Democrats who have shitty, shitty polling, but traditionally, they don't. Democrats don't live in the Fox Bubble of make-believe news.
Finally, it's all about Get Out The Vote. By all accounts, the Clinton team - staffed by Obama's old crew - is turning out those early votes in good numbers. Trump doesn't really have a GOTV apparatus. If it really is that close, GOTV is everything.
UPDATE: Also, too - THIS.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Why I'm Still Optimistic
This chart is why I can't see Trump getting elected:
Basically, red numbers are good for Democrats. Compare 2016 with 2012. Trump is underperforming Mitt Romney with the following groups: Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, Moderates, Men, Women, College Grads, Young People, People 30-64, Catholics, Protestants, Urban Dwellers, Suburban Dwellers, The Poor, The Rich, Hispanics, White College Grad Men, White College Grad Women.
Trump is overperforming Romney with the following groups: Whites Without College Degrees Men and Women. And Blacks.
That last one might be really critical. If Clinton can leverage Obama into increasing Black turnout into levels that are close to what he got, I just don't see how Trump can win.
I know the polls show the race tightening. I just can't see how Trump finds more votes than Romney.
And Romney lost. By a fair amount.
Trump is overperforming Romney with the following groups: Whites Without College Degrees Men and Women. And Blacks.
That last one might be really critical. If Clinton can leverage Obama into increasing Black turnout into levels that are close to what he got, I just don't see how Trump can win.
I know the polls show the race tightening. I just can't see how Trump finds more votes than Romney.
And Romney lost. By a fair amount.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)