Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Monday, May 30, 2016
What Could Go Wrong?
The Wrongest Man In Politics has a cunning plan to derail Trump. I can hardly wait for the announcement to drop, followed by the realization that it's too late to get his or her name on most of the state ballots.
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Graduation Day
Every year, another crop.
If I can find it, I will post the student speakers' speeches. Among the very best I've ever heard.
If I can find it, I will post the student speakers' speeches. Among the very best I've ever heard.
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Campaigns Don't Matter (Except When They Do)
Generally speaking, I hold in low regard the idea that tactical masterstrokes can alter the course of a campaign. John McCain kept throwing these Hail Mary "game changers" that did nothing but signal his desperation. Tactically speaking, you can lose a campaign through mistakes much more than you can win one by being shrewd. Obviously, this is different in a very close election like 2000.
It seems pretty apparent that Clinton is as much trying not to lose as she is to win. The reason is that Trump is an organizational dumpster fire. Because he rose outside the usual political avenues, he is disdainful of their efficacy. The problem with that "logic" is that Trump won less than 50% of the votes of the smaller political party. His shoot from the hip manner worked in a fractured field of winner take all or most primaries.
The big demographic issues still hold sway. There are still more Democratic voters than Republican voters. Both Trump and Clinton motivate the OTHER side in a negative way. Hard core Republicans may not like Trump, but they loath Clinton. Same goes for Democrats.
In the middle, where the elections are presumably decided, it pays to use analytics. It pays to organize field offices. It pays to line up non-party organizations.
Clinton is already raising more money than Trump. And she knows not to spend it in North Dakota or New York. She's going to spend it in Virginia and Colorado, where it will do the most good. Trump meanwhile is campaigning in both those states. That's just stupid.
And what's more, Trump's personal style is incompatible with critical self-evaluation. When the NY Times asked Trump about the tumult in his campaign - including firing Rick Wiley, one of the few people associated with the campaign that knows anything - Trump responded in typical Trumpian fashion:
Asked for comment about his management style, and the current state of his campaign, Mr. Trump declined, criticizing the reporters writing this article. "You two wouldn't know how to write a good story about me if you tried - dream on."
That is not the voice of a man who can adjust to the constantly changing landscape of the campaign. That is the voice of a man who only hears his own voice.
Chaos is Trump's medium. He will bring plenty of it to the campaign. If the election is close (and I don't think it will be), that chaos could be what costs Trump the presidency and saves this country from a true disaster.
It seems pretty apparent that Clinton is as much trying not to lose as she is to win. The reason is that Trump is an organizational dumpster fire. Because he rose outside the usual political avenues, he is disdainful of their efficacy. The problem with that "logic" is that Trump won less than 50% of the votes of the smaller political party. His shoot from the hip manner worked in a fractured field of winner take all or most primaries.
The big demographic issues still hold sway. There are still more Democratic voters than Republican voters. Both Trump and Clinton motivate the OTHER side in a negative way. Hard core Republicans may not like Trump, but they loath Clinton. Same goes for Democrats.
In the middle, where the elections are presumably decided, it pays to use analytics. It pays to organize field offices. It pays to line up non-party organizations.
Clinton is already raising more money than Trump. And she knows not to spend it in North Dakota or New York. She's going to spend it in Virginia and Colorado, where it will do the most good. Trump meanwhile is campaigning in both those states. That's just stupid.
And what's more, Trump's personal style is incompatible with critical self-evaluation. When the NY Times asked Trump about the tumult in his campaign - including firing Rick Wiley, one of the few people associated with the campaign that knows anything - Trump responded in typical Trumpian fashion:
Asked for comment about his management style, and the current state of his campaign, Mr. Trump declined, criticizing the reporters writing this article. "You two wouldn't know how to write a good story about me if you tried - dream on."
That is not the voice of a man who can adjust to the constantly changing landscape of the campaign. That is the voice of a man who only hears his own voice.
Chaos is Trump's medium. He will bring plenty of it to the campaign. If the election is close (and I don't think it will be), that chaos could be what costs Trump the presidency and saves this country from a true disaster.
Friday, May 27, 2016
Knowing The Rules
I'm watching the excellent All The Way from HBO, with Bryan Cranston as LBJ. It's fun watching him know where all the levers are to be pulled.
Trump (and Sanders) really don't know where the levers are. Clinton's advantage there could be pivotal.
Trump (and Sanders) really don't know where the levers are. Clinton's advantage there could be pivotal.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Sick And Tired Of The Damned Emails
The IG report had a harsh tone, but it really didn't break any new ground. Clinton shouldn't have had a private server, but that wasn't unusual. There is no evidence that the servers were hacked, but they could've been. Clinton screwed up, she has apologized. Unless the FBI report uncovers anything, this is a case of institutional poor judgment, not criminality.
One of the wonders of the Obama administration has been its scandal-free nature. That hasn't stopped Republicans from trying, from birth certificates to Solyandra to Benghazi. But they have ultimately fallen flat in their attempts to gin up a scandal where none exists.
The Clintons have always been problematic in how they respond to these ginned up scandals. They tend to be defensive and reactive. They don't get ahead of these stories, and the accumulated weight of them have an effect.
Hillary Clinton is routinely perceived as corrupt. Killary, she is called, because of fucking Benghazi. That perception is based on things that go back to the original nothingburgers that were Whitewater, Travelgate and Vince Foster. Benghazi and the email nontroversies are similar efforts to create enough smoke that people assume there is fire.
If she is going to win convincingly and govern effectively, she is going to have to change how she manages these scurrilous attacks. Bunkering down won't cut it.
One of the wonders of the Obama administration has been its scandal-free nature. That hasn't stopped Republicans from trying, from birth certificates to Solyandra to Benghazi. But they have ultimately fallen flat in their attempts to gin up a scandal where none exists.
The Clintons have always been problematic in how they respond to these ginned up scandals. They tend to be defensive and reactive. They don't get ahead of these stories, and the accumulated weight of them have an effect.
Hillary Clinton is routinely perceived as corrupt. Killary, she is called, because of fucking Benghazi. That perception is based on things that go back to the original nothingburgers that were Whitewater, Travelgate and Vince Foster. Benghazi and the email nontroversies are similar efforts to create enough smoke that people assume there is fire.
If she is going to win convincingly and govern effectively, she is going to have to change how she manages these scurrilous attacks. Bunkering down won't cut it.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Minority Rights
I friend of mine shared a piece by Damon Linker about transgender rights, the current "Bathroom Wars" and - as Linker put it - "liberals latest lazy cultural crusade."
His argument is that it's a political loser, and Obama just caved to left wing culture warriors out of laziness. As Linker says, he can't understand it because "I'm not the right kind of liberal." His basic argument is this:
For far too many contemporary liberals, that kind of informal, grassroots pressure from civil society never seems to be good enough. Too lazy and impatient to do the hard work of formulating arguments and trying to persuade, and too addicted to sanctimonious displays of moral righteousness, these liberals now prefer to use the ever-expanding edifice of anti-discrimination law to impose edicts from the top down.
The point of anti-discrimination laws is to prevent discrimination, you moron.
Well, yes. That's exactly the fucking point. You move a little bit with each step. Ten years ago, the issue was gay marriage. The president, as a candidate, was coy and circumspect and failing in moral courage. When he finally got to where he could proclaim to the public that he indeed supported what everyone knew he already supported, the battle was mostly won.
But Obama's belated embrace of same-sex marriage helped persuade African American church goers in ways that no one else could.
Trangender people are a tiny percentage of Americans. Let's be generous and say half of one percent. But that's over one and a half million people. People who - I'll admit - did not exist in any clear form on my cultural screen a decade ago.
And a decade ago, I was nervous about same-sex marriage. It had presumably cost John Kerry Ohio in 2004 and therefore the election. That feels like lazy conventional wisdom, but even if it were true, it's not 2004 anymore.
Vox went out and asked people about trangender people. The findings are a bit muddled. Generally speaking, about a third of Americans hold unfavorable views of trans people. But 22% hold unfavorable views about gays and lesbians. I would guess the circles of that Venn diagram are pretty much concentric. Up and down the survey, opinions about trans people are roughly a little worse than opinions about gays and lesbians.
A solid plurality (48%) think we should protect transgender's rights. Those numbers get closer when the bathroom issue gets interjected, but overall, a plurality still sides with trans people's rights.
What we are likely to see is what would have happened without Obama and Loretta Lynch getting involved. This will become yet another partisan issue, with Democrats supporting an expansion of rights and Republicans opposing.
But among younger people, there is more tolerance and acceptance of LGBT rights overall. Time is on the side of transgender people. As far as 2016 goes, there are precious few people who oppose transgender rights who were EVER going to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton.
I'm sorry for poor Mr. Linker, who seems discomfited that these "lazy liberals" are once again pushing rights for a group that Mr. Linker has decided are too small a group to care about.
In his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, King wrote: Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
Obviously, transgenders make up a much smaller portion of the population than African Americans.
But does that mean that rights are apportioned simply by numbers? I guess I'm not that right(wing) sort of liberal.
His argument is that it's a political loser, and Obama just caved to left wing culture warriors out of laziness. As Linker says, he can't understand it because "I'm not the right kind of liberal." His basic argument is this:
For far too many contemporary liberals, that kind of informal, grassroots pressure from civil society never seems to be good enough. Too lazy and impatient to do the hard work of formulating arguments and trying to persuade, and too addicted to sanctimonious displays of moral righteousness, these liberals now prefer to use the ever-expanding edifice of anti-discrimination law to impose edicts from the top down.
The point of anti-discrimination laws is to prevent discrimination, you moron.
Once the courts accept the narrative, the logic of anti-discrimination locks in, new rights become codified, and the former victims of injustice get to enjoy total victory while decades or centuries of communally based norms, practices, and beliefs get pulverized.
All for the sake of bending the arc of history a few more millimeters toward justice.
Well, yes. That's exactly the fucking point. You move a little bit with each step. Ten years ago, the issue was gay marriage. The president, as a candidate, was coy and circumspect and failing in moral courage. When he finally got to where he could proclaim to the public that he indeed supported what everyone knew he already supported, the battle was mostly won.
But Obama's belated embrace of same-sex marriage helped persuade African American church goers in ways that no one else could.
Trangender people are a tiny percentage of Americans. Let's be generous and say half of one percent. But that's over one and a half million people. People who - I'll admit - did not exist in any clear form on my cultural screen a decade ago.
And a decade ago, I was nervous about same-sex marriage. It had presumably cost John Kerry Ohio in 2004 and therefore the election. That feels like lazy conventional wisdom, but even if it were true, it's not 2004 anymore.
Vox went out and asked people about trangender people. The findings are a bit muddled. Generally speaking, about a third of Americans hold unfavorable views of trans people. But 22% hold unfavorable views about gays and lesbians. I would guess the circles of that Venn diagram are pretty much concentric. Up and down the survey, opinions about trans people are roughly a little worse than opinions about gays and lesbians.
A solid plurality (48%) think we should protect transgender's rights. Those numbers get closer when the bathroom issue gets interjected, but overall, a plurality still sides with trans people's rights.
What we are likely to see is what would have happened without Obama and Loretta Lynch getting involved. This will become yet another partisan issue, with Democrats supporting an expansion of rights and Republicans opposing.
But among younger people, there is more tolerance and acceptance of LGBT rights overall. Time is on the side of transgender people. As far as 2016 goes, there are precious few people who oppose transgender rights who were EVER going to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton.
I'm sorry for poor Mr. Linker, who seems discomfited that these "lazy liberals" are once again pushing rights for a group that Mr. Linker has decided are too small a group to care about.
In his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, King wrote: Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
Obviously, transgenders make up a much smaller portion of the population than African Americans.
But does that mean that rights are apportioned simply by numbers? I guess I'm not that right(wing) sort of liberal.
Monday, May 23, 2016
The Polls
Recent polls have shown an essentially tied race between Clinton and Trump. This is to be expected. Trump has sewn up the nomination and is consolidating his control over the GOP and winning the loyalty of GOP voters. Clinton still has the Bernie or Bust crowd to deal with. At this point in 2008, McCain led Obama for the same reason.
Polls in the early spring are usually pretty predictive. Then we enter a weird period during the summer where all sorts of strange numbers appear.
After the conventions and Labor Day, the numbers will again make more sense. That isn't to say that the poll numbers aren't saying anything, they are. They are noting that Trump is shoring up his support on the Right, while Clinton continues to fight on the Left.
But there still aren't enough Republicans to elect Donald Trump, and he still polls horribly with too many different groups.
Polls in the early spring are usually pretty predictive. Then we enter a weird period during the summer where all sorts of strange numbers appear.
After the conventions and Labor Day, the numbers will again make more sense. That isn't to say that the poll numbers aren't saying anything, they are. They are noting that Trump is shoring up his support on the Right, while Clinton continues to fight on the Left.
But there still aren't enough Republicans to elect Donald Trump, and he still polls horribly with too many different groups.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Alumni Day
I have to spend an hour or three tonight pretending to remember the names of the faces I can mostly recall.
Friday, May 20, 2016
History Or Poli Sci?
There are two theories about where this ends up with Sanders and Clinton.
The first notes that the 2008 campaign was much more vicious and hard fought than this one. Josh Marshall has a nice sampling of emails from back then that shows how toxic is was. And that worked out fine.
Jon Chait makes an equally reasonable argument that Sanders - unlike Clinton 8 years ago - has no investment in the Democratic party. For him, the system is broken. For Clinton against Obama, the system failed her, but she wasn't trying to overthrow the system.
So, is Sanders sui generis? Or will his pragmatic side show up and bridge the current rhetorical chasm between his most adamant supporters and the Democratic party?
UPDATE: Markos also lays the blame at Sanders' feet.
The first notes that the 2008 campaign was much more vicious and hard fought than this one. Josh Marshall has a nice sampling of emails from back then that shows how toxic is was. And that worked out fine.
Jon Chait makes an equally reasonable argument that Sanders - unlike Clinton 8 years ago - has no investment in the Democratic party. For him, the system is broken. For Clinton against Obama, the system failed her, but she wasn't trying to overthrow the system.
So, is Sanders sui generis? Or will his pragmatic side show up and bridge the current rhetorical chasm between his most adamant supporters and the Democratic party?
UPDATE: Markos also lays the blame at Sanders' feet.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Berning His Bridges
Josh Marshall sums up the state of the Sanders campaign pretty well. Marshall especially feels that this current toxicity is coming from Sanders - as opposed to those who blame Jeff Weaver.
Whatever the source, after the Nevada incident and Sanders' refusal to tone down the rhetoric, there is a growing backlash, especially among left-leaning Democrats. Plenty of people I know who said, "I support Sanders/I voted for Sanders, but I'm really OK with Clinton and desperately want to win in November" are now saying, "Screw Sanders."
Sanders is not a Democrat. Never has been. That is integral to his appeal. But that means he was never going to win the Superdelegates. Now, he's both pitching a strategy that relies on the Superdelegates, all the while shitting all over the party that they represent.
Sanders ran originally on an issue agenda. His campaign has now collapsed into an ego-filled squid cloud of butthurt. Any credibility and sympathy he had from people like me evaporated a while ago, but now he's alienating his softer supporters.
What hill (pardon the pun) is Sanders will to die on? What are the one or two issues that he needs to insist make it into the party platform? Because that's all he's got right now.
If I were advising Sanders, I'd demand a substantial reduction in superdelegates and more primaries rather than caucuses. I'd demand a plank on the minimum wage and maybe a public option. But those latter two he was going to get anyway.
But Sanders pushes this much further and he won't get anything.
Whatever the source, after the Nevada incident and Sanders' refusal to tone down the rhetoric, there is a growing backlash, especially among left-leaning Democrats. Plenty of people I know who said, "I support Sanders/I voted for Sanders, but I'm really OK with Clinton and desperately want to win in November" are now saying, "Screw Sanders."
Sanders is not a Democrat. Never has been. That is integral to his appeal. But that means he was never going to win the Superdelegates. Now, he's both pitching a strategy that relies on the Superdelegates, all the while shitting all over the party that they represent.
Sanders ran originally on an issue agenda. His campaign has now collapsed into an ego-filled squid cloud of butthurt. Any credibility and sympathy he had from people like me evaporated a while ago, but now he's alienating his softer supporters.
What hill (pardon the pun) is Sanders will to die on? What are the one or two issues that he needs to insist make it into the party platform? Because that's all he's got right now.
If I were advising Sanders, I'd demand a substantial reduction in superdelegates and more primaries rather than caucuses. I'd demand a plank on the minimum wage and maybe a public option. But those latter two he was going to get anyway.
But Sanders pushes this much further and he won't get anything.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
The Primary Is Not The General
Donald Trump's ability to win a plurality of the GOP voters has been followed up by many Republican voters coalescing around his candidacy. Meanwhile, Sanders threatens to burn down whatever gains he's made within the Democratic party by refusing to accept that sometimes you lose elections.
However, Trump's success and Sanders' current disruption doesn't alter the dynamics of the race. Trump has not brought in "new voters." And I can't see Clinton losing a state that Obama won.
So it's not a surprise that the Clinton team is going to play it safe.
Of course, playing it safe probably means they forfeit any chance of winning the House, but...
However, Trump's success and Sanders' current disruption doesn't alter the dynamics of the race. Trump has not brought in "new voters." And I can't see Clinton losing a state that Obama won.
So it's not a surprise that the Clinton team is going to play it safe.
Of course, playing it safe probably means they forfeit any chance of winning the House, but...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)