While the Presidential election is taking a lot of attention, we're missing a lot of action in the Senate. Specifically, one branch of Congress could flip parties. I've documented how if it flips, the GOP will likely take it back in 2018. But for now, the question is whether the Democrats can flip it blue. Right now, I'd say the odds are in their favor. They need to pick up a net of four seats (provided they win the presidential election) to take the majority in the Senate. Let's take a look at where things stand.
Sure Things
The incumbency advantage is large. So these races are not close at all: CA, AK, AR, AZ (John McCain), KS (Jerry Moran), OK (James Lankford), OR, KY (Rand Paul), WA, ID, ND, SD, IA, OH, NY, MD, CT, UT, VT, HI, AL, GA, SC, CO. All (with the possible exception of Rob Portman in Ohio) are the same party as the one that state will likely vote for president. That is, red state Republicans and blue state Democrats.
Almost Sure Things
Democrat Tammy Duckworth is almost assuredly going to win the Illinois Senate seat (+1 Democrat) over incumbent Mark Kirk. It's currently a red seat in a blue state, so it was always targeted.
There has only been one poll in Louisiana, and their elections are a bit weird (everybody in one giant primary on election day, then a runoff a few weeks/months later), but expect a Republican to win.
Wisconsin is likely to go blue. It's a rematch of six years ago, when Democrat Russ Feingold lost his seat to Ron Johnson. But Johnson is a GOP senator in a likely blue state, and he's also not made many friends. Almost every poll has had a Feingold lead, except one. +2 Democrat
GOP Sen. Marco Rubio will likely win his seat back in Florida. He's had a lead throughout the summer and fall. Some polls are showing it starting to close, but again: Rubio's had the lead in every poll. I don't see it flipping.
Pretty Likely
In a somewhat similar situation, Democrat Evan Bayh is running for his old seat in Indiana. He stepped down six years ago, then has returned this year in a state in which the Bayh family name carries a lot of weight (His dad was a politician, too). Every poll since he entered the race has showed Bayh leading, despite being a Democrat in a red state. It's gotten closer, but still: all polls show Bayh with a lead. +3 Democrat
What's Left
There are five states that will probably decide the Senate. The Democrats need to win any two of them: PA, NV, NC, NH, and MO. Nevada is the most important seat here. It's Harry Reid's seat (he's retiring), and it's the only currently Democratic seat among the five. All of these states are razor thin according to polling, so keep in mind that these are my educated guesses, and it could just as easily go the other way:
Of these, the one I feel most confident in right now is in North Carolina. North Carolina's polls have vacillated between a 2-point lead for either candidate. However, a majority of polls have GOP incumbent Sen. Richard Burr with the edge. He's had the lead or a tie in all but three polls this month. North Carolina's probably going blue, so it's still within striking distance for Democrat Deborah Ross. But for now, I have it staying red.
GOP Sen. Roy Blunt is not popular here in Missouri. Anecdotally, I don't think I've seen a Blunt sign this election, which is weird for an Republican incumbent in a red state. I've seen several for Jason Kander, though. On the other hand, many Democrats feel Kander is not all that liberal, but he's better than Blunt. Kander had what was called the best commercial of this election cycle of any race nationwide (This might be the funniest.). The few polls that exist show a close race, and Missouri's a weird state (It'll vote Trump for president, but it might vote in a Democrat as governor). Although it's close, I feel I need more than a poll or two to believe it's really flipping. I feel that Blunt wins, but it's pretty hard to get a read on it, and I live here. There isn't much polling data, but it's close for sure.
On the other hand, Pennsylvania has a lot of polling data. Heck, there have been roughly 15 polls of the Keystone State just since the first presidential debate. Nine showed a lead for Democrat challenger Katie McGinty. Four showed a tie. Four showed a lead for GOP Sen. Pat Toomey. I'm going to play the averages here and say that McGinty's lead in the polls and the fact Pennsylvania is a blue state leads her to victory. Also, Toomey struggled at a recent debate to say if he supported or denounced Trump, so that indecision may factor in. +4 Democrat
Nevada leaned to a GOP pickup for Joe Heck for the longest time. Then polls in the last two weeks show a different race. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's handpicked successor, Catherine Cortez Masto, has a lead in six of the last 10 polls. That said, one of the polls for Heck had him up by 8, so this isn't the easiest race to call. But I feel like something has changed here in recent weeks, and it is more likely to stay Democrat. It's just a hunch for now, but it's a change from two weeks ago.
The hardest is possibly in New Hampshire, where incumbent GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte has the slimmest of leads in the polls, but she's running against Democrat Gov. Maggie Hassan and it's a blue state. Ayotte (and those like Heck and Toomey above) is in a sticky position: Trying to figure out what to say about Trump without losing the election. She said in a NH debate that he was "absolutely" a role model for kids, then immediately walked it back. Now the GOP is actively running ads in N.H. that Clinton needs a check in Congress (implying they expect she'll win the presidency), the first to take that tack on a national level. I think Hassan ends up taking it because the state goes blue for the presidential election, but Ayotte is fighting very hard. +5 Democrats
In truth, I think I'm probably going to be wrong by one either way. But it's so close that it'll depend on turnout for either party. Maybe Nevada will flip red and both Ayotte and Toomey will hold on, in which case the GOP could keep the Senate. Maybe Kander surprises Blunt or Ross pulls off the win in North Carolina, in which case the Democrats could win a little breathing room for 2018. It's hard to tell. Thankfully, we will find out here in less than two weeks. I'm ready to talk about silly things again, like ranking the Scooby Doo television shows (coming sometime after the election).
Evan McMullin
I wanted to take a look at this man, who is more likely than either Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to win actual electoral college votes this election. He's got a decent chance of winning Utah, in a three-way race with Clinton and Trump there. So who is he and what does he believe?
He's an ex-CIA operations officer and used to work for the U.S. to resettle refugees. He was an investment banker and was formerly chief policy director for the House Republican Conference. He's also Mormon, which explains the love he gets in Utah and several states in the West with large Mormon populations.
From my readings of his policy views and website, although he's running as an independent, he's probably best described as a Republican from the 1990s/early 2000s. He supports free trade (something neither Trump nor Clinton does), wants Scalia-type Originalists on the Supreme Court, is pro-life, and is pro-Israel. He is in favor of keeping Guantanamo open, but dislikes the Iran nuclear agreement. However, he's also got some more... progressive views than Donald Trump. For instance, he's against same-sex marriage but "respects" the Supreme Court's Obergefell (gay marriage) decision and won't seek to overturn it. He's open about needs to raise the retirement age for Social Security and has suggested means-testing the program (!). He believes in climate change and wants to work to lower our carbon emissions. He supports certain provisions of Obamacare while also seeking to improve/do better. Unlike Trump, he opposes the use of torture. His stances on the issues are better thought out than the other third-party candidates and also largely more conservative.
All told, he seems like a good option for Republicans (or, heck, independents) who feel they could never support Clinton, but can't support Trump. He seems to be the sort of "reasonable Republican" that wouldn't have been on the debate stage this time last year during the primary debates. He would never have emerged from the Republican primary, because he's too moderate.
Further, from a practical viewpoint, he's not going to be president. There's a plausible scenario out there, in which Trump and Clinton keep each other from winning 270 votes, and McMullin wins Utah. That would send the election to the House, who might want to go with a moderate option of McMullin than Trump or Clinton. But although it's plausible, it's not likely. Even if it goes to the House, I think it's more likely to pick Trump than McMullin, although he would at least be in the conversation. McMullin isn't on the ballot in most states, including the three states in which I've lived long-term (Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma). He's not on the ballot in Florida or North Carolina, either — important states to the election. You can write him in for some of those states (Kansas and Missouri, notably) but not in all of them (Oklahoma).
There are just too many ifs for me to get too excited. 1) If you live in a state in which he's on the ballot or you can write in candidates for President and 2) If you are unconvinced to vote for Clinton or Trump and 3) If you think he can legitimately win the presidency by a) winning one state and b) hoping the other two don't win 270 votes and c) relying on the House to choose a moderate, then he's a fine choice. OPINION ALERT: From my view, his policies are a lot more attractive and thought out than the current Republican nominee.
Election Update
Presidential
The short version is this: Watch New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Colorado, Michigan, Virginia and Pennsylvania. These six are polling as solid Clinton states — not one poll shows a Trump lead in the last month — but Trump needs to win one of them to win the presidency. Everything else I'll mention is a bonus for Clinton, and would help provide either some breathing space or an election mandate. She can lose every state I'm mentioning below and still win, provided she doesn't lose any of the ones above. • • • • One poll of both Florida and North Carolina show a Trump lead. All others show a Clinton lead, so they stay blue. Iowa's polls are back-and-forth, but I feel like it leans red right now. Nevada's really close, too. I think it's the opposite of Iowa, and leans blue slightly. Ohio's most recent polls show a slight Trump lead, so I'm going to keep it red. Arizona is probably the closest in the polls, and although some had a slight Trump lead, others had a moderate Clinton lead. I'm going to play the average there and keep it blue. No changes. States to watch: Utah, Ohio, Arizona, Iowa, Florida, North Carolina. 333 Clinton, 205 Trump, 270 to win.
Summary Judgments
I thought this story about ESPN NFL Insider Chris Mortensen was very well done. Reporters aren't usually the stuff of in-depth features. Mortensen's life is fascinating, and his recent battle with Stage IV cancer is all the more heartbreaking. • • • Someone researched Trump's statements about religion. While we can't know what's in someone's heart, we can know what comes out of their lips and off their tongue. • • • I haven't been running lately, but I'm hoping to after Daylight Savings Time hits. That's because it's really dark right now when I have the chance to run: 6:30-7:15 a.m. I'd like to run a 5K on Thanksgiving morning, but if I can't practice, that won't happen. • • • I don't have any particularly good Roland and Evie stories this week. So instead, I'll talk about our yard. A few months ago, I narrowly missed a large branch falling on my car. Instead, it fell over the street and knocked the power line to a street light. The utility company came out, fixed the power line and sawed up/moved the tree out into our yard — it's our problem now. Well, I borrowed a chainsaw from a neighbor, but didn't get done before the chain came off. Another neighbor came by and did a little more, but their chainsaw broke. So I've had a couple large logs/branch pieces sitting in our yard for a while -- I don't know where to take them/what to do with them. Now the leaves are falling from the tree and I have tons of branches in my backyard, lots of wood and I need to mow one last time. Anybody need any wood and/or leaves?
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Special Edition: Missouri referenda
My Mom asked me about what I thought of the Constitutional Amendments on the fall ballot. I honestly didn't know. So I figured I'd take a deeper look, and thought some of you might want to come along for the ride.
Amendment 1
In plain language: Renew a 10-year sales tax to help fund state parks/historic sites and soil/water preservation efforts.
Analysis: It's been in place since 1984. It's a benefit from a tax you don't even think about.
Recommendation: Please vote yes, because the benefits are worth the money.
Amendment 2
In plain language: Campaign contribution limits. It would limit donors to $2,600 contributions to state offices and to $25,000 for political parties. It bars people from hiding the source of gifts, requires unions/corporations to jump through some hoops to contribute, and creates a complaint process/penalties for violations. There's a minor financial impact on the state.
Analysis: Missouri voters approved contribution limits in 1994, but the GOP-led General Assembly threw them out in 2008. We, as a populace, talk a lot about wanting to reform "the system," and wishing for more accountability/transparency. This is a chance to do that on a state level.
Recommendation: Please vote yes, because this is a good first step toward bringing order to the state's chaos.
Amendment 3
In plain language: Raising taxes on cigarettes from 17 cents a pack to 77 cents a pack in four increments by 2020. The money goes to a new Early Childhood Health and Education Trust Fund, and the money will be divided out by a commission. It's estimated to bring in $263-$374 million a year.
Analysis: I don't smoke. No one in my immediate family does, either. So at first blush, it's free money (to us) for education. Who wouldn't want that? But that's a dramatically oversimplified view.
What is this cigarette tax intending to do? For one, proponents say it'll deter smoking. If that's true, then the most effective way to do that with a tax increase is to do it all at once — the sticker shock prompts many into quitting. Or make it a high enough tax increase that it would be a detriment. But this amendment doesn't do that. Instead, it graduates in the tax hike a dime or so a year, which undermines its ability to deter smokers — small price hikes don't deter smokers. And further, opponents say tobacco taxes under $1 don't deter people at all.
Missouri's tobacco taxes are the lowest in the nation at 17 cents a pack, so the tax rate should be higher. This is a weak hike in comparison to our neighbors -- we'd still be far lower than 6 of our 8 neighboring states (Nebraska and Tennessee would be lower if passed, but all other neighbors are over $1 in per-pack tax.).
There's no doubt we need money for early childhood funding -- Missouri is 47th in the nation (!) for that. The Legislature should do something about that.
One reason for the tax is to get smaller tobacco companies to pay their share. Small tobacco companies have been avoiding paying certain taxes. This is a known problem, one that Chris Koster has fought against as Attorney General (though he's against this amendment). We're the only state in the country that hasn't fixed this problem. So big tobacco companies, who are funding the support of this amendment, want to see their competitors pay their fair share, and a "happy coincidence" would be that Big Tobacco's profits might go up as a result. That's... not wrong, though it makes me feel icky to side with Big Tobacco. Morally, I always feel icky siding with Big Tobacco. They're not wrong that the loophole needs to be fixed, but the state Legislature has been specifically tasked with that twice, and they've failed to do so.
This bill does include some unnecessarily weird language, though. It specifically bans any funding from this bill to go toward abortion services, stem cell research, or research into the harmful effects of tobacco. These are... troubling additions, as they are the only subjects specified and they're lawsuit bait waiting to happen. In fact, the proponents have already tried seeking legal opinions from former judges to bolster their defense on this issue, but these three issues did not need to be added. They muddy the waters and I'm sure most voters can find one of those three things they would like to see funded.
Sometimes, it's important to see who are the allies and enemies of a proposal. In the pro-camp? Tobacco companies. Big tobacco companies, specifically R.J. Reynolds, of Camel brand fame. In the anti-camp? Many but not all major health, education and child-oriented groups. Further, both governor candidates are against it, albeit for very different reasons. Eric Greitens is against all new taxes. Koster supports early education, but finds the amendment to be a clumsy attempt to fix it. Almost every major paper in Missouri (with the lone exception of the back-and-forth St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who endorsed it, then opposed it, then endorsed it again) has said to vote no.
Finally, there are some opposed that feel that any new revenue created by the state will inevitably not go toward its intended use. I lived in Kansas, and this is what happened to the money supposed to go to KDOT. I hate to be cynical, but this happens to nearly everything. Some will go toward the intended purpose, but maybe not all.
I'm unmoved by the arguments against an unelected commission giving out the money. That's how the sausage gets made a lot of times. This isn't a great argument for those against it.
Recommendation: I went back and forth on it, but I'll probably vote no, and here's my logic: We should have higher tobacco taxes. We need early childhood education. Smaller tobacco companies need to pay their fair share. But this doesn't really deter smokers, adds some provisions that should not have been included, and has fairly broad opposition from both parties. The state is starving for early education, and this would give us soup and a fork. We need the soup, but a fork is no way to eat it.
However, it's a tough call. I liked what the St. Louis Jewish Light had to say: "...the choice is really dependent on where your personal priorities lay. If you believe that adding some tax is better than none and funding early childhood education in a substantial manner is better than not funding it, then this is a Yes vote for you. However, if you believe that the increase in cigarette taxes isn't enough or won't have significant enough health benefits, or you oppose the other provisions or sin taxes in general, then you may be at No."
Amendment 4
In plain language: Ban all new state and local sales taxes on any services that weren't taxed before 2015.
Analysis: This is pushed by the Missouri Association of Realtors, who want to have protection against possible taxes on their services. But this is a real handcuff for state and local governments and is unnecessary.
Recommendation: Vote no.
Amendment 6
In plain language: Voter ID law. You'd have to show a valid photo ID to vote.
Analysis: This is a partisan issue. In general, Republicans want photo IDs to vote and Democrats don't.
Republicans believe that voter fraud is a real problem, and that voter ID laws prevent that from happening. They believe that the fundamentals of democracy are protected by a photo ID law. To them, it's common sense and doesn't affect a lot of people.
Democrats have some problems with that. 1) The only type of voter fraud stopped by voter ID laws is in-person voter impersonation. One in-depth study found only 31 possible cases of that nationwide since 2000. Voter impersonation is exceedingly rare nationwide -- More people died from being mauled by a dog in 2015 alone than voter impersonation cases over a 15-year period. In a country of several billion votes since 2000, we've only had 31 possible cases. The biggest cause of voter fraud is absentee ballots -- this doesn't solve that at all.
2) There are some people who are unlikely to have voter IDs who still wish to vote. This includes the elderly, some students, some people of color, etc. The estimate is that there are 200,000 people in Missouri who would have to jump through hoops in order to vote. African-Americans are twice as likely as whites not to have a voter ID. Latinos are 2.5 times as likely. It can be difficult for those without voter IDs to get them. Here's John Oliver in February talking about voter ID laws (language warning, and although there are lots of jokes, he's got a lot of good points).
3) Many voter ID laws are being shot down by federal judges for the above reason. Passing this amendment would likely just end with it getting overruled.
Recommendation: Vote no. It's a solution without a problem. If 200,000 people are less likely to vote in this state for a problem that may not exist, then that's not a great plan.
Proposition A
In plain language: Raise cigarette taxes to 40 cents a pack by 2021. The funds would help pay for transportation issues. This tax hike would automatically be revoked if any city or county passes its own tobacco tax. Revenue from this hike is around $100 million a year.
Analysis: It's like a worse version of Amendment 3.
This one is funded by the small tobacco companies who want to keep avoiding the loophole I mentioned earlier, as well as to confuse voters.
Recommendation: Vote no. Transportation is a worthy cause, but the tax hike won't deter anyone from smoking, the ban on city/county tobacco taxes is horribly restrictive, and this really isn't a whole lot for transportation, in the grand scheme of things.
Amendment 1
In plain language: Renew a 10-year sales tax to help fund state parks/historic sites and soil/water preservation efforts.
Analysis: It's been in place since 1984. It's a benefit from a tax you don't even think about.
Recommendation: Please vote yes, because the benefits are worth the money.
Amendment 2
In plain language: Campaign contribution limits. It would limit donors to $2,600 contributions to state offices and to $25,000 for political parties. It bars people from hiding the source of gifts, requires unions/corporations to jump through some hoops to contribute, and creates a complaint process/penalties for violations. There's a minor financial impact on the state.
Analysis: Missouri voters approved contribution limits in 1994, but the GOP-led General Assembly threw them out in 2008. We, as a populace, talk a lot about wanting to reform "the system," and wishing for more accountability/transparency. This is a chance to do that on a state level.
Recommendation: Please vote yes, because this is a good first step toward bringing order to the state's chaos.
Amendment 3
In plain language: Raising taxes on cigarettes from 17 cents a pack to 77 cents a pack in four increments by 2020. The money goes to a new Early Childhood Health and Education Trust Fund, and the money will be divided out by a commission. It's estimated to bring in $263-$374 million a year.
Analysis: I don't smoke. No one in my immediate family does, either. So at first blush, it's free money (to us) for education. Who wouldn't want that? But that's a dramatically oversimplified view.
What is this cigarette tax intending to do? For one, proponents say it'll deter smoking. If that's true, then the most effective way to do that with a tax increase is to do it all at once — the sticker shock prompts many into quitting. Or make it a high enough tax increase that it would be a detriment. But this amendment doesn't do that. Instead, it graduates in the tax hike a dime or so a year, which undermines its ability to deter smokers — small price hikes don't deter smokers. And further, opponents say tobacco taxes under $1 don't deter people at all.
Missouri's tobacco taxes are the lowest in the nation at 17 cents a pack, so the tax rate should be higher. This is a weak hike in comparison to our neighbors -- we'd still be far lower than 6 of our 8 neighboring states (Nebraska and Tennessee would be lower if passed, but all other neighbors are over $1 in per-pack tax.).
There's no doubt we need money for early childhood funding -- Missouri is 47th in the nation (!) for that. The Legislature should do something about that.
One reason for the tax is to get smaller tobacco companies to pay their share. Small tobacco companies have been avoiding paying certain taxes. This is a known problem, one that Chris Koster has fought against as Attorney General (though he's against this amendment). We're the only state in the country that hasn't fixed this problem. So big tobacco companies, who are funding the support of this amendment, want to see their competitors pay their fair share, and a "happy coincidence" would be that Big Tobacco's profits might go up as a result. That's... not wrong, though it makes me feel icky to side with Big Tobacco. Morally, I always feel icky siding with Big Tobacco. They're not wrong that the loophole needs to be fixed, but the state Legislature has been specifically tasked with that twice, and they've failed to do so.
This bill does include some unnecessarily weird language, though. It specifically bans any funding from this bill to go toward abortion services, stem cell research, or research into the harmful effects of tobacco. These are... troubling additions, as they are the only subjects specified and they're lawsuit bait waiting to happen. In fact, the proponents have already tried seeking legal opinions from former judges to bolster their defense on this issue, but these three issues did not need to be added. They muddy the waters and I'm sure most voters can find one of those three things they would like to see funded.
Sometimes, it's important to see who are the allies and enemies of a proposal. In the pro-camp? Tobacco companies. Big tobacco companies, specifically R.J. Reynolds, of Camel brand fame. In the anti-camp? Many but not all major health, education and child-oriented groups. Further, both governor candidates are against it, albeit for very different reasons. Eric Greitens is against all new taxes. Koster supports early education, but finds the amendment to be a clumsy attempt to fix it. Almost every major paper in Missouri (with the lone exception of the back-and-forth St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who endorsed it, then opposed it, then endorsed it again) has said to vote no.
Finally, there are some opposed that feel that any new revenue created by the state will inevitably not go toward its intended use. I lived in Kansas, and this is what happened to the money supposed to go to KDOT. I hate to be cynical, but this happens to nearly everything. Some will go toward the intended purpose, but maybe not all.
I'm unmoved by the arguments against an unelected commission giving out the money. That's how the sausage gets made a lot of times. This isn't a great argument for those against it.
Recommendation: I went back and forth on it, but I'll probably vote no, and here's my logic: We should have higher tobacco taxes. We need early childhood education. Smaller tobacco companies need to pay their fair share. But this doesn't really deter smokers, adds some provisions that should not have been included, and has fairly broad opposition from both parties. The state is starving for early education, and this would give us soup and a fork. We need the soup, but a fork is no way to eat it.
However, it's a tough call. I liked what the St. Louis Jewish Light had to say: "...the choice is really dependent on where your personal priorities lay. If you believe that adding some tax is better than none and funding early childhood education in a substantial manner is better than not funding it, then this is a Yes vote for you. However, if you believe that the increase in cigarette taxes isn't enough or won't have significant enough health benefits, or you oppose the other provisions or sin taxes in general, then you may be at No."
Amendment 4
In plain language: Ban all new state and local sales taxes on any services that weren't taxed before 2015.
Analysis: This is pushed by the Missouri Association of Realtors, who want to have protection against possible taxes on their services. But this is a real handcuff for state and local governments and is unnecessary.
Recommendation: Vote no.
Amendment 6
In plain language: Voter ID law. You'd have to show a valid photo ID to vote.
Analysis: This is a partisan issue. In general, Republicans want photo IDs to vote and Democrats don't.
Republicans believe that voter fraud is a real problem, and that voter ID laws prevent that from happening. They believe that the fundamentals of democracy are protected by a photo ID law. To them, it's common sense and doesn't affect a lot of people.
Democrats have some problems with that. 1) The only type of voter fraud stopped by voter ID laws is in-person voter impersonation. One in-depth study found only 31 possible cases of that nationwide since 2000. Voter impersonation is exceedingly rare nationwide -- More people died from being mauled by a dog in 2015 alone than voter impersonation cases over a 15-year period. In a country of several billion votes since 2000, we've only had 31 possible cases. The biggest cause of voter fraud is absentee ballots -- this doesn't solve that at all.
2) There are some people who are unlikely to have voter IDs who still wish to vote. This includes the elderly, some students, some people of color, etc. The estimate is that there are 200,000 people in Missouri who would have to jump through hoops in order to vote. African-Americans are twice as likely as whites not to have a voter ID. Latinos are 2.5 times as likely. It can be difficult for those without voter IDs to get them. Here's John Oliver in February talking about voter ID laws (language warning, and although there are lots of jokes, he's got a lot of good points).
3) Many voter ID laws are being shot down by federal judges for the above reason. Passing this amendment would likely just end with it getting overruled.
Recommendation: Vote no. It's a solution without a problem. If 200,000 people are less likely to vote in this state for a problem that may not exist, then that's not a great plan.
Proposition A
In plain language: Raise cigarette taxes to 40 cents a pack by 2021. The funds would help pay for transportation issues. This tax hike would automatically be revoked if any city or county passes its own tobacco tax. Revenue from this hike is around $100 million a year.
Analysis: It's like a worse version of Amendment 3.
This one is funded by the small tobacco companies who want to keep avoiding the loophole I mentioned earlier, as well as to confuse voters.
Recommendation: Vote no. Transportation is a worthy cause, but the tax hike won't deter anyone from smoking, the ban on city/county tobacco taxes is horribly restrictive, and this really isn't a whole lot for transportation, in the grand scheme of things.
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Final Debate Frenzy
The third debate is less important than the other two. The first debate is important -- a candidate's time to set the tone, for the dynamics of the race to be laid bare, and for each candidate to make their best case. The second debate is important, too, because it serves as a chance to correct problems from the first debate (think Obama v. Romney II, in which Obama stepped up his game). The third debate doesn't serve those functions. It's a last chance for a good impression and a last chance to correct any major issues.
Clinton, with a notable lead in national polling, was playing prevent defense, to use a football metaphor. Her goal was not to make a major mistake/not blow her lead. Trump, being behind, had to not only win, but change the dynamics of the race. The headlines today are all about Trump making a mistake and blowing it. They're not wrong about Trump making a mistake, but he was blowing it well before then, as you'll see.
Numbers
I told you that I don't think time spent talking means a whole lot, and Trump spoke more the first two debates. This time, Clinton spoke more, for 41:46, with Trump talking for 35:41, per CNN. I don't know that it means anything, but there you are. She got about 6 minutes more, but she was interrupted a lot.
Which brings me to interruptions. Fox News had 35 interruptions total for Trump, and 11 for Clinton. Vox said that Trump interrupted Clinton 37 times and she interrupted him 9 times. FiveThirtyEight (scroll down to the graphic) had it a little more one-sided: 44 for Trump, 4 for Clinton. I did my own count, using the transcript. I have Trump at 53 interruptions and Clinton at 11, nearly a 5:1 margin. Don't let anyone tell you that she's just as bad as him on this. She interrupted less often than Chris Wallace.
No single word stood out to me like in other debates. But I did want to track the use of "very." Clinton used it 21 times. Trump used it 45 times, including 6 uses of "very, very" (counts as two uses of the word), including three in one specific answer.
Reactions
I didn't hear as much complaining as during the second debate or after the first debate. But there were a few subtle gripes/swipes at moderator Chris Wallace:
• When Wallace would bring up an issue that put Clinton on the spot, Trump said "Right" or "Correct" or "Thank you." It was as if he were saying, "It's about time you did."
• Clinton's only gripe/swipe was "If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, you'll see..."
• Trump picks a little fight with Wallace over Aleppo, but it's a weird fight. Wallace notes that Trump's description of Aleppo as having fallen is not true, and tries to ask about it, but Trump argues with him over how bad it is, I guess? The question Wallace eventually asks is that Russia and Syria have been bombing Aleppo, so why did you say it fell to ISIS?
• Wallace correctly points out that Trump's tax plan/economic goals are not going to address entitlements at all.
I should talk about Chris Wallace real quick. I have a short list of Fox News people that I like (Bret Baier and often Megyn Kelly come mind first), but he's at the top of it. I like hard news people and not personalities, essentially. Chris Wallace treats people on both sides fairly, in that he asks pointed, pertinent questions and lets the subject talk. He didn't have a very good relationship with his father, 60 Minutes/CBS reporter Mike Wallace, but he clearly learned a lot from both his father and his mentor, Walter Cronkite. Washington Post reporter Erik Wemple hit the best part of Wallace's performance: Get the substantive debate in early before you get to the personality/scandal issues later.
Facts
Here are a couple links. CNN on the facts. NBC News on the facts.
Politifact rated 36 statements. It rated 15 Clinton statements, and 10 of those were true/mostly true, with 0 (!) false/mostly false. It rated 19 Trump statements, with 6 true/mostly true and 11 false/mostly false. The final two were not really rated.
Breakdown
If you've been watching politics over the last.. *sigh* ... year and a half, then you know that Clinton is one of the two best debaters of this election cycle (the other being Ted Cruz, with Chris Christie not far behind). That's not to say I agree with either all the time, but they're both the best debaters, given their law degree. She can be beaten, but she won't beat herself. National Review editor Rich Lowry tweeted: "Hillary is pedestrian and over-programmed, but never made a notable mistake across 3 debates."
Trump's body language was better than the town hall format. I heard an interesting theory about Trump recently originally proffered by his Art of the Deal ghostwriter. I'm not sure I completely agree with it, but it did affect the way I viewed his interjections/outbursts: Most negative things he says about others are actually describing him. It's projection, according to psychologists. This explains the following: Ruth Bader Ginsburg making inappropriate comments (he says inappropriate things often), the "that was a great pivot off of..." line (he did it all the time in the debate), "You're the puppet!", "She's been proven a liar on so many different ways" (See the Facts section above), getting upset when Clinton interrupts (see the number of interruptions above), she incited violence at his rallies (It was the other way around), the Clinton Foundation doesn't do any good work (the Trump Foundation has many problems of its own), "You are the one who is unfit," and calling Clinton nasty. Again, it's not completely perfect, but it certainly was a different lens of viewing his attacks. But in the end, I think Trump had several major mistakes that cost him the debate.
The Supreme Court segment was largely traditional and hit on their policy differences. Trump did seem to believe that just putting conservative justices on the Supreme Court would "automatically" reverse Roe v. Wade, but that's not how it works. He said abortion would go back to the states, which... if he's as pro-life as he says, wouldn't he want to just ban it outright? I don't understand his tactics, but both explained their policy differences well.
The immigration segment was also largely traditional, though Clinton got a little defensive on Trump's accusation that she's for open borders. But the immigration debate leads to a win for Trump followed by a major mistake. Wallace asks Clinton, per WikiLeaks, if she's in favor of open borders. She responds by saying the quote referred to energy and pivoting to WikiLeaks and Russia's involvement, which is probably accurate. She tries to turn the tables on Trump by challenging him to reject Russian espionage/involvement in the election. He calls her out: "That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders." The crowd clamors and Wallace tries to calm the audience down. Trump should have stopped there, but instead keeps going. He talks about her desire for open borders, then in the third sentence talks about people coming from Syria. Then, in quick succession: radical Islamic terrorism, don't know Putin, Putin doesn't respect Clinton. She gets in a good retort about Putin wanting a puppet for president, and Trump can't stand it. Three interruptions, all with some variation of "no puppet/you're the puppet." Any adult can see that the "No, you are" argument is silly. This is Mistake 1.
He then gets into it with her about believing the 17 government agencies who say the leaks are from Russia. She's saying he trusts Russia more than 17 government agencies. He says he doubts them, flat-out admitting what Clinton was intimating. This is Mistake 2.
Those were mistakes, but the debate was still fairly on track. The topic moves to the economy, and Clinton gives a fine, if unremarkable answer. Trump gets 2 minutes, and spends the first paragraph talking about how bad Clinton's tax plan would be, then shifts for five paragraphs (!) about our foreign allies not paying their share, then three paragraphs about how bad NAFTA was, then two and a half sentences about his own plans. Clinton follows with "Let me translate that if I can." He says "You can't." Then she explains his tax cuts better than he did. This portion is pretty typical for a while, even though he praised himself for getting a fact right (TPP as "gold standard.").
She gets an answer, and hits him on exporting jobs and using Chinese steel and gives some details about her plans. That's where he starts to lose it. He asks why she didn't do anything over the years, and she interrupts that she voted. He gets agitated — "Excuse me. My turn." He goes back to her point about using Chinese steel and seems to admit to it while using a terrible argument. He says "Make it impossible for me to do that." In essence, he's simultaneously admitting to doing it while making the argument that the watchdog (Clinton) is to blame and not the thief (him) — a thief's gonna thief, I guess? This casts him as the bad guy, though. This is Mistake 3.
Then the topics turn to Clinton's favor. The next topic is on "Fitness for President," followed by foreign policy. These are better topics for Clinton than Trump. The first question in the Fitness for President section is about Trump's sexual assault accusers. He gives a disastrous response. He says they've been debunked (They really haven't been.). He accuses her and Obama of causing the violence at his rallies (Long story short, there may have been some planted protesters, but none caused violence -- that was Trump's supporters.). He says he didn't apologize to his wife. He accuses her of planting the sexual assault accusations. She gets a chance to respond, and rips into him, quoting him accurately and turning it into an inspirational, uplifting message that we have to create a society that rejects that. It's a strong response. He tries to pivot to the emails. She hammers it by pointing out his comments on a disabled reporter, the Gold Star family, POWs and Judge Curiel. He weakly tries to change the subject to ISIS. The topic turns to the Clinton Foundation, and Trump eventually brings up his own foundation as a contrast. Chris Wallace asks if that money was used to settle lawsuits, and he sort of admits it ("There was. There was.") I'm not going to say this section was a mistake, but it was a terrible series of subjects for him, and he stumbled while defending himself. He was already off balance at this point, throwing accusations and getting hit hard by Clinton (and Wallace). He'd already made three major mistakes.
Wallace then asks if the election is rigged/will he accept the results. This lead all the major networks and is still an issue this morning. He wouldn't say yes. This is obviously Mistake 4. He doubled down this morning, saying he would accept the results "if I win." *SIGH* Look, I'm not going to spend time on something as clearly black-and-white terrible as this.
He blames the media, talks over Chris Wallace — who is trying to explain how important this answer is, invents voter fraud and says she should have been disqualified for her emails. Clinton hits back with her best answer of the night. "Every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction... it is rigged against him." She notes the FBI investigation. She notes the Iowa caucus and Wisconsin primary. She notes Trump University. She even brings up his Emmy loss, and he can't help but interject "should have gotten it." The crowd laughs, because he's seemingly verified her point. He tries to hit back with emails, but Wallace moves on to foreign policy, another Clinton strength.
Trump tries to cite Bernie Sanders, and Clinton says you should ask Bernie who he supports for president. Trump walked into that one. The rest of the foreign policy segment goes fine, aside from the Trump-Wallace fight about Aleppo.
Wallace asks both about entitlements and the budget, and Trump does not address the question whatsoever. He talks the economy (not the issue) and tax cuts (also not the issue) before Wallace points out those don't affect the entitlements issue. Trump then spends three paragraphs on Obamacare, which is also not the issue. Clinton actually answers the question, saying that the wealthy paying their fair share will help. She notes that she and Trump will pay more, assuming he won't find a way out of it. This prompts his "such a nasty woman" line. He's being attacked, but this isn't exactly an out-of-bounds statement. His response is accusatory and unnecessary. I don't know that it stoops to sexism, but it's really off-putting. It's Mistake 5.
She didn't make major mistakes, and he made five. She swept the three debates. She can be beaten by a good debater. Trump can't get out of his own way to put on a good debate.
Other thoughts
• The transcript I read has "You're the puppet!" with an exclamation mark at the end. Grammatically, I find exclamation points like the word "very" -- they rarely mean a whole lot, and a period is just as effective. In fact, the next use is "No, you're the puppet." With a period. The decision to put an exclamation mark on the first one made me laugh.
• The Supreme Court was the first question, and it's perhaps the best display of their differences, touching on gay marriage, Citizens United, gun rights and abortion. Trump spends an entire paragraph griping about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He also said that justices shouldn't decide what they want to hear, but... that's the way the Supreme Court works — they vote among themselves on which subjects to hear.
• Trump says that Clinton was "extremely upset" about a gun rights case. Wallace asked if she was "extremely upset." She said she was just upset. How do you quantify "extremely"?
• Things Trump interjected to say were wrong: 1) his cavalier attitude toward nuclear weapons (depends on the specific country). 2) There's no quote about nuclear weapons for some of those countries (Yes, there is.)
• At one point, Trump says he's not going to single out countries that aren't paying for defense. Then he immediately names Japan, Germany, South Korea and Saudi Arabia. Great job not singling them out.
• Trump believes the U.S. should be growing at the same rate as India and China. But those are developing markets. The U.S. should be compared with its peers in Europe and Japan, and by those standards, it's doing better than its peers.
• The Celebrity Apprentice was, in fact, interrupted for the Osama Bin Laden raid announcement.
• Just before the part about accepting the election, Clinton uses an interruption effectively: "Made with Chinese steel." He doesn't argue the point.
• Clinton, at one point, notes that Trump took out a major ad against Reagan's trade policies. This makes her the champion of Reagan, which is a weird dichotomy. Trump essentially says, "Yeah, we disagreed on trade."
• Chris Wallace gave them both an unexpected 1-minute closing statement. It was this campaign in short. Clinton: I'm reaching out, we need to work together, make the economy work, I understand the presidency, my mission is children and families, please vote for me. There's no mention of her opponent, and it's all positive. Trump: Attack on Clinton for closeness with donors, make America great again, take care of military, stop illegal immigrants, law and order, people of color shouldn't believe her, it's four more years of Barack Obama (note: Obama's favorability is over 50 percent. Probably not a great tactic.). His response is negative about his opponent while espousing a few authoritarian/protectionist policies.
Election Update
Presidential
I said I'm eliminating the Toss-Up category, so let me get into it. Clinton is way ahead in Colorado, Wisconsin and Virginia. All but one poll of Nevada shows a Clinton lead. New Hampshire's not close. North Carolina hasn't had Trump with a lead this month, and there have been many polls. They've all been close, but consistent. Pennsylvania's less close than North Carolina. Florida has consistently shown a 4-point Clinton lead, or thereabouts. Trump keeps the lead in Georgia. Arizona is close, but there have been 8 polls since the first debate: two ties, two 1-point Trump leads, and four Clinton leads of varying sizes. It's blue this week. Most of the recent polls of Iowa have shown Trump leads. It's red. Ohio is also really tough to call. Most of the newest polls have a slight Trump lead. I'm going to turn it red for this week. For lack of more polls, I'm going to give Maine's second district to Trump and Nebraska's second, too. I don't have much reasoning, but it's a gut feeling. Finally, Utah. Utah is a three-way race between Clinton, Trump and Evan McMullin. I think Trump wins, but McMullin makes him sweat every one of those electoral votes. Arizona moves blue. Ohio moves red. Iowa moves red. Maine and Nebraska's 2nd district go red. States to watch: Utah, Iowa, Ohio, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida. Electoral College: 333 Clinton, 205 Trump, 270 to win.
Senate
I'll do a more in-depth analysis of the Senate next week. But I said I'm removing the Toss-Up category. Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana stay as flips to the Democrats. Two good polls came out in Pennsylvania. I'm going to give incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Toomey the edge for now. It moves red. North Carolina is really, really close. Only one poll shows a lead larger than 2 points. However, they've mostly been consistent for the incumbent GOP Sen. Richard Burr. The important race in Nevada had several new polls. The trend is toward Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto and away from a flipped seat for the Republicans. There are not many polls of my state, Missouri. Jason Kander (who was scheduled to come speak at Jewell, but canceled) has a tie and a lead in the two most recent polls. I'm flipping Missouri blue. Based on polling, the closest race is in New Hampshire between incumbent GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Democrat Gov. Maggie Hassan. For every poll with a lead for one candidate, the other has one of equal size. It's close. I'm giving the edge to Hassan for now, since the state will go blue. Nevada, New Hampshire and Missouri go blue. North Carolina and Pennsylvania go red. +5 Democrats to take a 51-49 Senate advantage.
Summary Judgments
I'm not a fan of WikiLeaks. That's because how you get information is just as important as the information itself. They're not journalists. Journalists are not hackers. Journalists have ethics (usually). Marco Rubio agrees, and warned the GOP not to celebrate WikiLeaks going after Democrats. Because although it's the Dems now, it could be the GOP later. • • • Here's a link to a great breakdown of the two candidate's health care plans, put as simply as possible. • • • After the debate, we watched The Langoliers -- Alyson and I's favorite terrible Stephen King interpretation. It's so bad, everyone: Lots of vacant airport staring, lots of dramatic nothing happening, lots of bad acting. The most famous actor you'd recognize is Dean Stockwell (not Scott Bakula in Quantum Leap). It's ripe for MST3K. • • • Obamacare has its ups and downs. That might make a good topic of discussion in a future edition of News Judgments after the election. But one thing I didn't realize was that its estimated price tag has been below estimates — and the estimates have been revised downward five times! • • • I couldn't agree more with this request to kill the "Spin Room." • • • I want. • • • I'm debating whether I want to run a Thanksgiving morning 5K. I want to, but it's hard to go running in the early morning when the sun hasn't risen (usually around 6:30 a.m.). • • • Roland's favorite day care worker is going to leave, so he's going to be a wreck after next week. Evie can help. Twice this week, I've been accidentally kicked or something, and covered the injured body part. Both times, she's said "I kiss it" before kissing it. It warms my heart.
Clinton, with a notable lead in national polling, was playing prevent defense, to use a football metaphor. Her goal was not to make a major mistake/not blow her lead. Trump, being behind, had to not only win, but change the dynamics of the race. The headlines today are all about Trump making a mistake and blowing it. They're not wrong about Trump making a mistake, but he was blowing it well before then, as you'll see.
Numbers
I told you that I don't think time spent talking means a whole lot, and Trump spoke more the first two debates. This time, Clinton spoke more, for 41:46, with Trump talking for 35:41, per CNN. I don't know that it means anything, but there you are. She got about 6 minutes more, but she was interrupted a lot.
Which brings me to interruptions. Fox News had 35 interruptions total for Trump, and 11 for Clinton. Vox said that Trump interrupted Clinton 37 times and she interrupted him 9 times. FiveThirtyEight (scroll down to the graphic) had it a little more one-sided: 44 for Trump, 4 for Clinton. I did my own count, using the transcript. I have Trump at 53 interruptions and Clinton at 11, nearly a 5:1 margin. Don't let anyone tell you that she's just as bad as him on this. She interrupted less often than Chris Wallace.
No single word stood out to me like in other debates. But I did want to track the use of "very." Clinton used it 21 times. Trump used it 45 times, including 6 uses of "very, very" (counts as two uses of the word), including three in one specific answer.
Reactions
I didn't hear as much complaining as during the second debate or after the first debate. But there were a few subtle gripes/swipes at moderator Chris Wallace:
• When Wallace would bring up an issue that put Clinton on the spot, Trump said "Right" or "Correct" or "Thank you." It was as if he were saying, "It's about time you did."
• Clinton's only gripe/swipe was "If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, you'll see..."
• Trump picks a little fight with Wallace over Aleppo, but it's a weird fight. Wallace notes that Trump's description of Aleppo as having fallen is not true, and tries to ask about it, but Trump argues with him over how bad it is, I guess? The question Wallace eventually asks is that Russia and Syria have been bombing Aleppo, so why did you say it fell to ISIS?
• Wallace correctly points out that Trump's tax plan/economic goals are not going to address entitlements at all.
I should talk about Chris Wallace real quick. I have a short list of Fox News people that I like (Bret Baier and often Megyn Kelly come mind first), but he's at the top of it. I like hard news people and not personalities, essentially. Chris Wallace treats people on both sides fairly, in that he asks pointed, pertinent questions and lets the subject talk. He didn't have a very good relationship with his father, 60 Minutes/CBS reporter Mike Wallace, but he clearly learned a lot from both his father and his mentor, Walter Cronkite. Washington Post reporter Erik Wemple hit the best part of Wallace's performance: Get the substantive debate in early before you get to the personality/scandal issues later.
Facts
Here are a couple links. CNN on the facts. NBC News on the facts.
Politifact rated 36 statements. It rated 15 Clinton statements, and 10 of those were true/mostly true, with 0 (!) false/mostly false. It rated 19 Trump statements, with 6 true/mostly true and 11 false/mostly false. The final two were not really rated.
Breakdown
If you've been watching politics over the last.. *sigh* ... year and a half, then you know that Clinton is one of the two best debaters of this election cycle (the other being Ted Cruz, with Chris Christie not far behind). That's not to say I agree with either all the time, but they're both the best debaters, given their law degree. She can be beaten, but she won't beat herself. National Review editor Rich Lowry tweeted: "Hillary is pedestrian and over-programmed, but never made a notable mistake across 3 debates."
Trump's body language was better than the town hall format. I heard an interesting theory about Trump recently originally proffered by his Art of the Deal ghostwriter. I'm not sure I completely agree with it, but it did affect the way I viewed his interjections/outbursts: Most negative things he says about others are actually describing him. It's projection, according to psychologists. This explains the following: Ruth Bader Ginsburg making inappropriate comments (he says inappropriate things often), the "that was a great pivot off of..." line (he did it all the time in the debate), "You're the puppet!", "She's been proven a liar on so many different ways" (See the Facts section above), getting upset when Clinton interrupts (see the number of interruptions above), she incited violence at his rallies (It was the other way around), the Clinton Foundation doesn't do any good work (the Trump Foundation has many problems of its own), "You are the one who is unfit," and calling Clinton nasty. Again, it's not completely perfect, but it certainly was a different lens of viewing his attacks. But in the end, I think Trump had several major mistakes that cost him the debate.
The Supreme Court segment was largely traditional and hit on their policy differences. Trump did seem to believe that just putting conservative justices on the Supreme Court would "automatically" reverse Roe v. Wade, but that's not how it works. He said abortion would go back to the states, which... if he's as pro-life as he says, wouldn't he want to just ban it outright? I don't understand his tactics, but both explained their policy differences well.
The immigration segment was also largely traditional, though Clinton got a little defensive on Trump's accusation that she's for open borders. But the immigration debate leads to a win for Trump followed by a major mistake. Wallace asks Clinton, per WikiLeaks, if she's in favor of open borders. She responds by saying the quote referred to energy and pivoting to WikiLeaks and Russia's involvement, which is probably accurate. She tries to turn the tables on Trump by challenging him to reject Russian espionage/involvement in the election. He calls her out: "That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders." The crowd clamors and Wallace tries to calm the audience down. Trump should have stopped there, but instead keeps going. He talks about her desire for open borders, then in the third sentence talks about people coming from Syria. Then, in quick succession: radical Islamic terrorism, don't know Putin, Putin doesn't respect Clinton. She gets in a good retort about Putin wanting a puppet for president, and Trump can't stand it. Three interruptions, all with some variation of "no puppet/you're the puppet." Any adult can see that the "No, you are" argument is silly. This is Mistake 1.
He then gets into it with her about believing the 17 government agencies who say the leaks are from Russia. She's saying he trusts Russia more than 17 government agencies. He says he doubts them, flat-out admitting what Clinton was intimating. This is Mistake 2.
Those were mistakes, but the debate was still fairly on track. The topic moves to the economy, and Clinton gives a fine, if unremarkable answer. Trump gets 2 minutes, and spends the first paragraph talking about how bad Clinton's tax plan would be, then shifts for five paragraphs (!) about our foreign allies not paying their share, then three paragraphs about how bad NAFTA was, then two and a half sentences about his own plans. Clinton follows with "Let me translate that if I can." He says "You can't." Then she explains his tax cuts better than he did. This portion is pretty typical for a while, even though he praised himself for getting a fact right (TPP as "gold standard.").
She gets an answer, and hits him on exporting jobs and using Chinese steel and gives some details about her plans. That's where he starts to lose it. He asks why she didn't do anything over the years, and she interrupts that she voted. He gets agitated — "Excuse me. My turn." He goes back to her point about using Chinese steel and seems to admit to it while using a terrible argument. He says "Make it impossible for me to do that." In essence, he's simultaneously admitting to doing it while making the argument that the watchdog (Clinton) is to blame and not the thief (him) — a thief's gonna thief, I guess? This casts him as the bad guy, though. This is Mistake 3.
Then the topics turn to Clinton's favor. The next topic is on "Fitness for President," followed by foreign policy. These are better topics for Clinton than Trump. The first question in the Fitness for President section is about Trump's sexual assault accusers. He gives a disastrous response. He says they've been debunked (They really haven't been.). He accuses her and Obama of causing the violence at his rallies (Long story short, there may have been some planted protesters, but none caused violence -- that was Trump's supporters.). He says he didn't apologize to his wife. He accuses her of planting the sexual assault accusations. She gets a chance to respond, and rips into him, quoting him accurately and turning it into an inspirational, uplifting message that we have to create a society that rejects that. It's a strong response. He tries to pivot to the emails. She hammers it by pointing out his comments on a disabled reporter, the Gold Star family, POWs and Judge Curiel. He weakly tries to change the subject to ISIS. The topic turns to the Clinton Foundation, and Trump eventually brings up his own foundation as a contrast. Chris Wallace asks if that money was used to settle lawsuits, and he sort of admits it ("There was. There was.") I'm not going to say this section was a mistake, but it was a terrible series of subjects for him, and he stumbled while defending himself. He was already off balance at this point, throwing accusations and getting hit hard by Clinton (and Wallace). He'd already made three major mistakes.
Wallace then asks if the election is rigged/will he accept the results. This lead all the major networks and is still an issue this morning. He wouldn't say yes. This is obviously Mistake 4. He doubled down this morning, saying he would accept the results "if I win." *SIGH* Look, I'm not going to spend time on something as clearly black-and-white terrible as this.
He blames the media, talks over Chris Wallace — who is trying to explain how important this answer is, invents voter fraud and says she should have been disqualified for her emails. Clinton hits back with her best answer of the night. "Every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction... it is rigged against him." She notes the FBI investigation. She notes the Iowa caucus and Wisconsin primary. She notes Trump University. She even brings up his Emmy loss, and he can't help but interject "should have gotten it." The crowd laughs, because he's seemingly verified her point. He tries to hit back with emails, but Wallace moves on to foreign policy, another Clinton strength.
Trump tries to cite Bernie Sanders, and Clinton says you should ask Bernie who he supports for president. Trump walked into that one. The rest of the foreign policy segment goes fine, aside from the Trump-Wallace fight about Aleppo.
Wallace asks both about entitlements and the budget, and Trump does not address the question whatsoever. He talks the economy (not the issue) and tax cuts (also not the issue) before Wallace points out those don't affect the entitlements issue. Trump then spends three paragraphs on Obamacare, which is also not the issue. Clinton actually answers the question, saying that the wealthy paying their fair share will help. She notes that she and Trump will pay more, assuming he won't find a way out of it. This prompts his "such a nasty woman" line. He's being attacked, but this isn't exactly an out-of-bounds statement. His response is accusatory and unnecessary. I don't know that it stoops to sexism, but it's really off-putting. It's Mistake 5.
She didn't make major mistakes, and he made five. She swept the three debates. She can be beaten by a good debater. Trump can't get out of his own way to put on a good debate.
Other thoughts
• The transcript I read has "You're the puppet!" with an exclamation mark at the end. Grammatically, I find exclamation points like the word "very" -- they rarely mean a whole lot, and a period is just as effective. In fact, the next use is "No, you're the puppet." With a period. The decision to put an exclamation mark on the first one made me laugh.
• The Supreme Court was the first question, and it's perhaps the best display of their differences, touching on gay marriage, Citizens United, gun rights and abortion. Trump spends an entire paragraph griping about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He also said that justices shouldn't decide what they want to hear, but... that's the way the Supreme Court works — they vote among themselves on which subjects to hear.
• Trump says that Clinton was "extremely upset" about a gun rights case. Wallace asked if she was "extremely upset." She said she was just upset. How do you quantify "extremely"?
• Things Trump interjected to say were wrong: 1) his cavalier attitude toward nuclear weapons (depends on the specific country). 2) There's no quote about nuclear weapons for some of those countries (Yes, there is.)
• At one point, Trump says he's not going to single out countries that aren't paying for defense. Then he immediately names Japan, Germany, South Korea and Saudi Arabia. Great job not singling them out.
• Trump believes the U.S. should be growing at the same rate as India and China. But those are developing markets. The U.S. should be compared with its peers in Europe and Japan, and by those standards, it's doing better than its peers.
• The Celebrity Apprentice was, in fact, interrupted for the Osama Bin Laden raid announcement.
• Just before the part about accepting the election, Clinton uses an interruption effectively: "Made with Chinese steel." He doesn't argue the point.
• Clinton, at one point, notes that Trump took out a major ad against Reagan's trade policies. This makes her the champion of Reagan, which is a weird dichotomy. Trump essentially says, "Yeah, we disagreed on trade."
• Chris Wallace gave them both an unexpected 1-minute closing statement. It was this campaign in short. Clinton: I'm reaching out, we need to work together, make the economy work, I understand the presidency, my mission is children and families, please vote for me. There's no mention of her opponent, and it's all positive. Trump: Attack on Clinton for closeness with donors, make America great again, take care of military, stop illegal immigrants, law and order, people of color shouldn't believe her, it's four more years of Barack Obama (note: Obama's favorability is over 50 percent. Probably not a great tactic.). His response is negative about his opponent while espousing a few authoritarian/protectionist policies.
Election Update
Presidential
I said I'm eliminating the Toss-Up category, so let me get into it. Clinton is way ahead in Colorado, Wisconsin and Virginia. All but one poll of Nevada shows a Clinton lead. New Hampshire's not close. North Carolina hasn't had Trump with a lead this month, and there have been many polls. They've all been close, but consistent. Pennsylvania's less close than North Carolina. Florida has consistently shown a 4-point Clinton lead, or thereabouts. Trump keeps the lead in Georgia. Arizona is close, but there have been 8 polls since the first debate: two ties, two 1-point Trump leads, and four Clinton leads of varying sizes. It's blue this week. Most of the recent polls of Iowa have shown Trump leads. It's red. Ohio is also really tough to call. Most of the newest polls have a slight Trump lead. I'm going to turn it red for this week. For lack of more polls, I'm going to give Maine's second district to Trump and Nebraska's second, too. I don't have much reasoning, but it's a gut feeling. Finally, Utah. Utah is a three-way race between Clinton, Trump and Evan McMullin. I think Trump wins, but McMullin makes him sweat every one of those electoral votes. Arizona moves blue. Ohio moves red. Iowa moves red. Maine and Nebraska's 2nd district go red. States to watch: Utah, Iowa, Ohio, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida. Electoral College: 333 Clinton, 205 Trump, 270 to win.
Senate
I'll do a more in-depth analysis of the Senate next week. But I said I'm removing the Toss-Up category. Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana stay as flips to the Democrats. Two good polls came out in Pennsylvania. I'm going to give incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Toomey the edge for now. It moves red. North Carolina is really, really close. Only one poll shows a lead larger than 2 points. However, they've mostly been consistent for the incumbent GOP Sen. Richard Burr. The important race in Nevada had several new polls. The trend is toward Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto and away from a flipped seat for the Republicans. There are not many polls of my state, Missouri. Jason Kander (who was scheduled to come speak at Jewell, but canceled) has a tie and a lead in the two most recent polls. I'm flipping Missouri blue. Based on polling, the closest race is in New Hampshire between incumbent GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Democrat Gov. Maggie Hassan. For every poll with a lead for one candidate, the other has one of equal size. It's close. I'm giving the edge to Hassan for now, since the state will go blue. Nevada, New Hampshire and Missouri go blue. North Carolina and Pennsylvania go red. +5 Democrats to take a 51-49 Senate advantage.
Summary Judgments
I'm not a fan of WikiLeaks. That's because how you get information is just as important as the information itself. They're not journalists. Journalists are not hackers. Journalists have ethics (usually). Marco Rubio agrees, and warned the GOP not to celebrate WikiLeaks going after Democrats. Because although it's the Dems now, it could be the GOP later. • • • Here's a link to a great breakdown of the two candidate's health care plans, put as simply as possible. • • • After the debate, we watched The Langoliers -- Alyson and I's favorite terrible Stephen King interpretation. It's so bad, everyone: Lots of vacant airport staring, lots of dramatic nothing happening, lots of bad acting. The most famous actor you'd recognize is Dean Stockwell (not Scott Bakula in Quantum Leap). It's ripe for MST3K. • • • Obamacare has its ups and downs. That might make a good topic of discussion in a future edition of News Judgments after the election. But one thing I didn't realize was that its estimated price tag has been below estimates — and the estimates have been revised downward five times! • • • I couldn't agree more with this request to kill the "Spin Room." • • • I want. • • • I'm debating whether I want to run a Thanksgiving morning 5K. I want to, but it's hard to go running in the early morning when the sun hasn't risen (usually around 6:30 a.m.). • • • Roland's favorite day care worker is going to leave, so he's going to be a wreck after next week. Evie can help. Twice this week, I've been accidentally kicked or something, and covered the injured body part. Both times, she's said "I kiss it" before kissing it. It warms my heart.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Round 2: Wash. U Boogaloo
Hillary won the debate (she wasn't perfect, though), but Trump did enough that people who are inclined to like him and dislike Hillary will probably find some solace in his performance. I'm not sure that stems the tide from his horrible weekend, though.
Numbers
The town hall format is at least supposed to be more conversational and respectful. There were fewer interruptions. However, I still counted Trump at 17 interruptions. Clinton had three, including two in one short exchange (whether she was involved in the Syrian "red line"). So he's interrupting her somewhere between a 5:1 and a 6:1 margin. Let's not pretend this is both sides talking over each other — the interruptions are pretty one-sided.
Most sources had Trump at about a minute more in speaking time than Clinton, roughly 40 minutes to 39.
Trump used "disaster" 16 times, in reference to Obamacare, single-payer health care (not an actual Clinton policy), Iraq, alleged Clinton tax hikes, Clinton's experience as a senator, Libya, Clinton's entire foreign policy career, Aleppo, NAFTA, inner-city education, the economy in upstate New York, and "jobs." There are a lot of disasters.
A friend of mine alerted me to another way to track attacks: by name. Trump never said "Hillary," but used the full name "Hillary Clinton" 12 times. Clinton used "Donald" or "Donald Trump" 35 times over the course of the debate. But that's not the whole story, because Trump pointedly didn't say Clinton's name, but used "she" most of the time. He used "she" in reference to Clinton 141 times. Clinton used "he" in reference to Trump 54 times. Add all those up, and Trump attacked Clinton by name or pronoun 153 times. Clinton, on the other hand, attacked Trump 89 times. So roughly 5 attacks by Trump for every 3 of Clinton's -- they are not equal attackers.
Reactions
This category is easy, because it happened during the debate. Complaining about the moderators is not a good look, and signals that you're trying to blame someone else for losing. By my count, it happened at least five times, probably six:
• "So she's allowed to do that, but I'm not allowed to respond?" immediately after he was given an opportunity to respond.
• "It's nice... one on three."
• "Why don't you interrupt her? You interrupt me all the time..."
• "Excuse me. She just went about 25 seconds over her time there." Moderator Martha Raddatz: "She did not."
• "I think we should be allowed to maybe..." -- I'm pretty sure he was going to say something about being allowed to respond, but he got cut off by Raddatz.
• "You know what's funny? She went over a minute over, and you don't stop her. When I go one second over, it's like a big deal."
Both candidates went over their time limits, but I didn't notice inconsistencies from Cooper/Raddatz in the transcript — they told both candidates when they were going over. I would say that they questioned Trump more often, but that's because he wasn't answering the question or would take a surprising position (like disagreeing with Pence), and they wanted clarification or an on-the-record policy statement.
At the first debate, I didn't notice the sniffles thing that others have mentioned. I did this time, though. His problem is that he's holding the microphone too close to his mouth/nose, and so every inhale gets magnified. This problem could be (should have been) addressed by a little practice.
Facts
Again, here are some links.
Politifact rated 21 Trump statements, and found 7 true/mostly true and 12 false/mostly false. Clinton had 6 rated statements (she made fewer accusations) and 5 were true/mostly true and 1 mostly false. Three other statements by the candidates did not have a rating.
Body Language
I hate talking about body language and format, because it's so subjective. But the town hall format showed a stark difference.
Town halls are meant to have the candidates engage with the audience. Clinton engaged with the questioners. "Are you a teacher?" she asked the first questioner. Later, she says "Mr. Carter..." when answering a question. "It sounds like you're in the business or you're aware of people in the business..." she said to Ken Bone. She often walked over and looked the questioner in the eye as she began her response and usually stuck to the issue, or at least a related sidebar. Both candidates used "That's a great question." Trump rarely addressed the questioner at all.
One final body language issue I want to mention is about Donald Trump, because I don't think he sat down all night. Sitting indicates comfort. Clinton often sat down, showing she was more at ease. While I don't think the claims of "lurking" were all that out of place for the format (Clinton may have intentionally set him up for a couple of those moments), he did pace and stand behind his chair and put the microphone to his lips often — without saying anything, but getting ready to interject. Some called it alpha-male, but it was at the least aggressive. Clinton's not without her faults: When tough issues/accusations came up against Clinton, she tended to smile away her discomfort. That's not as obvious as pacing the room and the on-edge body language of Trump, but it's also not a good look.
Breakdown
My complaints about Clinton remain the same: She falls back on talking points too much. She doesn't react naturally to in-the-moment interaction, so when opportunities arise for a sharp retort, she can't/doesn't seize it. She needs to stop throwing fact checking to her website -- it's lame and probably won't be done. I think many of the accusations Trump threw at her deserved a little more response than simply saying it's all untrue. Even 15 seconds of defense would have been a good use of her time. I get the strategy — take the high road. But not addressing the accusations made her seem dismissive. She was like a football team that won by 10, but had three turnovers. She was good enough, but man, she could have been dominant!
But this debate was, like the election, about Donald Trump. I thought it was the opposite of the first debate. Trump's best part of the first debate was his first 25 minutes, and then he sort of fell apart. This time, he had a terrible first third of the debate, then only kind of composed himself. He was on the attack all night, but often forced attacks in. He almost never presented any of his own policies, rather attacking Obama/Clinton for failure. For instance, the first question asked if they're modeling good behavior for kids. Clinton's answer is positive, talking about goals and being united. Trump speaks for a paragraph about the country being great, then talks negatively about Obamacare, the Iran deal and the trade deficit, as well as bringing back law and order. He didn't address the question at all.
Anderson Cooper brings up the tapes that leaked over the weekend. Trump first denies that he said it, then calls it locker room talk, then apologizes, then reiterates that it's locker room talk. He then spends three paragraphs talking about ISIS, declaring we should move on to other things. There was no transition whatsoever in between: "...locker room talk. You know, when we have a world where you have ISIS chopping off heads...". When Cooper presses him on whether he did the things on the tape, Trump gives a denial then moves to an unrelated issue: "And I will tell you: No, I have not. And I will tell you that I'm going to make our country safe." Clinton then gives a good, detailed answer about this as the latest in a pattern and that it's not what America stands for. Trump wants to respond, and uses his time not to defend himself, but to attack Clinton for not doing enough for upstate New York, blacks, latinos and inner cities. It's a confusing response.
But soon, Raddatz turns the attention back to the tapes. The question: "Trump has said the campaign changed him. When did that change occur?" This is rock bottom for Trump. Trump responds that it was locker room talk, and Bill Clinton's done much worse. However, 1) Bill's not running for president. 2) Let's not go throwing stones, Mr. Glass House. 3) At the last debate, Trump praised himself for not bringing it up and said it was "inappropriate" and "rude." The only thing that changed is that he's now desperate. 4) He blames Hillary for bringing it up — but it was the Washington Post that revealed the story and it was brought up by the questioner, not Hillary. Clinton hadn't yet mentioned it.
After she says that he never apologizes for anything, he throws everything he can in response. Almost all of these are entirely unsubstantiated. He says that Sidney Blumenthal started the birther movement (false). He says that Michelle Obama made videos against her (?). He describes Clinton as the devil. He brings up the email scandal. He says he'll make a special prosecutor look into her situation, as if the FBI hadn't already investigated it. Soon thereafter, he says she'd be in jail. This latter line gets a lot of attention, and those who don't like Clinton will probably cheer it on. However, the FBI has said that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, meaning Trump's calling for his political rival to be jailed. It's a despicable line, and he's continued making it.
Moments later, the issue swings to the emails, and both sides talk about it. Then, Trump strangely asks why Anderson Cooper isn't bringing up the emails. What were you just talking about, then? Soon there's a question from a Muslim woman about how to deal with Islamophobia. In a town hall format, where you're trying to answer questions, Trump really messes this one up. "You're right about Islamophobia, and that's a shame," he said, then turns to describe profiling (a cause of Islamophobia), makes up falsehoods about San Bernardino (more fuel to the Islamophobia fire) and insinuates that Muslims aren't informing on other Muslims (weird). Clinton's response invokes Capt. Khan and Trump's fight with his family, Muhammad Ali and other historic Muslim Americans while saying Muslim Americans are our strongest ally in addressing homegrown terrorism. Trump gets the next question and brings it back to Khan, saying that if he'd been President, Khan would still be alive. SIGH.
He has a terrible run of questions, denying a relationship with Putin when he spoke at least four times between 2013 and 2015 about his relationship with Putin. He later admitted to not paying federal income taxes, then blamed it on Clinton for letting him get away with it. He's trying to shift the blame there — it's like if a guy caught shoplifting says, "It's the store's fault for not stopping me." Trump also accuses Clinton's supporters of doing the same thing (Warren Buffett released his taxes Monday to disprove this point). He then tries to shift the topic to the Middle East. After both get the Syria question, Trump spends two minutes blaming Obama for the mess before Raddatz steers him back. He then throws Mike Pence under the bus, saying they haven't spoken and he disagrees (!).
After some expected answers about the "basket of deplorables" line, Cooper asks Trump about if he has the discipline to be a good leader since he tweeted at 3 a.m. to check out a sex tape (that doesn't exist) of Alicia Machado. Let's break down this response: "No, there wasn't check out a sex tape. [His tweet said "check out sex tape and past."] It was just take a look at the person she built up to be this wonderful Girl Scout who was no Girl Scout. [Clinton only said that you called her Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping, and that Machado would vote. She didn't say she was perfect. Trump is calling attention to Machado's faults as if that gives him license to be offensive.]" Cooper tries to correct him. Trump then talks about Benghazi (?) and a debunked accusation that Clinton was asleep at 3 a.m. the night of the Benghazi attack before saying he's not unproud of the tweets. This man is running for President.
The night ended with three audience questions that were answered by both with nothing truly of note said by either. Trump spent most of his time attacking Obama/Clinton or making easily disproven statements. He hit a lot of right-wing talking points in his attacks, which may make those who hate Clinton jump back on, but he did not talk policy and did not do anything to win over moderates/women/people of color that he will need to win the election. Combined with the Trump tapes (which I may remark on another day), this was a bad weekend for him.
Other Thoughts
• Clinton's answer on the email issue is a glass half full/half empty. She has apologized countless times on a grand stage for it, including at both debates. She's right that no classified information got out of the realm of the government (all who received/sent classified emails had clearance) and the FBI found no intent to evade/hide emails. But she's wrong that the server/email was OK/permitted. Trump rightfully hits her on it and correctly points out when she tries to move on to other questions.
• For the record, here's what the FBI said about the email deletions: The State Department asked for all work-related emails (not a subpoena). Hillary's team goes through the server, sends 30,000 emails, and tells the server company anything older than 60 days should be deleted. Four months later, the eighth Benghazi committee issues a subpoena after the New York Times reveals her private server. Twenty days later, an employee for the server company has an "oh s***" moment and remembers he forgot to delete the Clinton archive and deletes the old emails. The FBI said there was no intent to delete emails to avoid subpoena and that the employee made that decision without any contact from supervisors or the Clinton staff. The FBI found no evidence there was an attempt to conceal, which is kind of the implication.
• Trump said it's not been debunked that he supported the war in Iraq before it began. He's wrong.
• Trump continues to botch one of his endorsements. He was not endorsed by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). He was endorsed by the union of employees that work for ICE.
• Clinton invoked the Spielberg movie "Lincoln" to defend having a public and private view. I saw the movie, so I kind of see where she was coming from, but it was a weak answer. She then tried to turn it onto Trump's tax returns, but Trump capitalized on the opening she gave him by hitting her for not being honest.
• Neither had a great answer on specific tax changes to make sure the wealthy pay their share. Trump would get rid of carried interest and drop the corporate tax rate from 35 to 15 percent (not sure this helps on getting the wealthy to pay their share). Clinton would also get rid of carried interest, prevent tax hikes on those making less than $250,000 and have a surcharge on those making over $5 million. If you want a great breakdown of the tax plans, watch this 10-minute video.
• Clinton's answer on her 30 years of service is a good one. There's a lot of working across the aisle there, and Trump's only response is that she should have done more.
• Trump just throws accusations out there, and many get no attention. Take one where he says she's maybe consulted with the Obama administration in its recent dealings with Russia. I have no idea where he gets that. By saying "possibly," it gives him wiggle room to get out of it.
• Raddatz is a highly respected journalist who has been in many war zones. She's been in Iraq more than a dozen times and has spoken to the generals on the scene. When Trump says that the military is stupid for saying they'll attack Mosul, she tries to defend their logic. I think she should have pressed him, without getting into it herself. Trump does say he's "pretty good at it," with it meaning... military? I'm not certain, but the insinuation is that he's better at this than the current generals.
• Both give party-line answers on the Supreme Court issue. I'd rather both had said they'd appoint judges who are strong in the law rather than say what stances they should/should not take.
Election Update
I'm looking at two things: Polls taken after the first debate on Sept. 27 and polls taken after this weekend. Those after this weekend are trickling in. Almost all of these polls are in the first category.
Presidential
I'll say which of these state polls include data from after this weekend (Trump tapes/second debate), but assume they're all from before this weekend unless I mention it. Iowa's polls are mixed, with one good one showing a small Trump lead and two not-as-reputable polls with decent Clinton leads. However, those last two included some data from after last weekend. I'm moving it to Toss-Up. There have been several polls of Arizona since the first debate, and the two reputable ones show a tie or a small Clinton lead. I'm moving Arizona to Toss-Up. I don't think Colorado is all that close, but one reputable poll had that state a tie while others have a 10-point Clinton lead. I'm going to keep an eye on Colorado, but it stays blue for now. Last week, I moved Florida, North Carolina and Nevada blue. The few new polls since last week still show a small, consistent Clinton lead. Nevada's three polls (all after this weekend) were between tie and +6 for Clinton. Those three stay blue. There have been six polls of Ohio since the first debate. Clinton's led in five. But Trump led by 5 points in the other one, so I was going to keep it Toss-Up. Then a post-this weekend poll had Clinton up 9. It moves blue. I've also seen a poll or two of Nebraska's second district, and it's pretty close. I should also mention that Mormons in Utah are mostly flocking to independent Evan McMullin instead of Trump. A few polls show Clinton and Trump within a few points because McMullin and Gary Johnson are stealing votes. I still think Utah goes Trump, but I'll watch for a few more polls. Arizona, Nebraska's 2nd District and Iowa move to Toss-Up. Ohio moves blue. Toss-Ups: Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska's 2nd district and Maine's 2nd district. States to Watch: Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Iowa, Utah, North Carolina, Colorado. Electoral College: 340 Clinton, 179 Trump, 270 to win. As of next week, I'm eliminating the Toss-Up category.
Senate
Nevada still shows a lead for GOP Joe Heck, but two polls after this weekend have either a tie or a small lead for Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto. I'll make it No Clue for this week. Polls from New Hampshire are split, but I'll watch it: GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte said Trump was "absolutely" a role model, and then apologized, and then this weekend happened. North Carolina polls post-debate show everything between a 2-point Democrat lead to a 5-point GOP lead. Pennsylvania's the same way: polls are everywhere between +6 Democrat and +8 Republican. Most have a Democrat lead, but I'll leave it No Clue for now. I'm going to revisit the Senate campaign in a week or two with more analysis. Pennsylvania and Nevada move to No Clue. No Clue: New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Missouri. +2 Democrat, not enough for a majority. This is probably the closest race of the election, and I'll eliminate the No Clue as of next week.
Summary Judgments
This is the most shocking thing about this election cycle. • • • No one, from Mike Pence to Chris Christie to Paul Ryan to Reince Preibus to Ted Cruz, will defend the Trump tapes. But they'll still vote for him. What in the world would he have to do to lose their vote? • • • Monday morning, Trump has gone to war with his own party. Sigh. • • • I ran the 5K + 3K in a combined time of 56:23. I'm proud of my time, it's roughly an 11-minute/mile pace. That was 10th in my age bracket! I'm acting like that's good! Note: There were only 16 men age 30-39. • • • We went to the pumpkin patch this weekend, and Roland hasn't stopped talking about it. But he can't quite say what he wants. "Ammals!" "Punky Catch!" "Domuss!" Translation: Animals, Pumpkin Patch, Donuts. • • • This may be TMI, but we have an Evie story that I need to write down somewhere. They've been eating a ton of taco meat lately, and last night I went to change Evie's diaper. As I open it up, she said, "Tacos in there!" Yup. Yes there are. Yes. Yuck.
Numbers
The town hall format is at least supposed to be more conversational and respectful. There were fewer interruptions. However, I still counted Trump at 17 interruptions. Clinton had three, including two in one short exchange (whether she was involved in the Syrian "red line"). So he's interrupting her somewhere between a 5:1 and a 6:1 margin. Let's not pretend this is both sides talking over each other — the interruptions are pretty one-sided.
Most sources had Trump at about a minute more in speaking time than Clinton, roughly 40 minutes to 39.
Trump used "disaster" 16 times, in reference to Obamacare, single-payer health care (not an actual Clinton policy), Iraq, alleged Clinton tax hikes, Clinton's experience as a senator, Libya, Clinton's entire foreign policy career, Aleppo, NAFTA, inner-city education, the economy in upstate New York, and "jobs." There are a lot of disasters.
A friend of mine alerted me to another way to track attacks: by name. Trump never said "Hillary," but used the full name "Hillary Clinton" 12 times. Clinton used "Donald" or "Donald Trump" 35 times over the course of the debate. But that's not the whole story, because Trump pointedly didn't say Clinton's name, but used "she" most of the time. He used "she" in reference to Clinton 141 times. Clinton used "he" in reference to Trump 54 times. Add all those up, and Trump attacked Clinton by name or pronoun 153 times. Clinton, on the other hand, attacked Trump 89 times. So roughly 5 attacks by Trump for every 3 of Clinton's -- they are not equal attackers.
Reactions
This category is easy, because it happened during the debate. Complaining about the moderators is not a good look, and signals that you're trying to blame someone else for losing. By my count, it happened at least five times, probably six:
• "So she's allowed to do that, but I'm not allowed to respond?" immediately after he was given an opportunity to respond.
• "It's nice... one on three."
• "Why don't you interrupt her? You interrupt me all the time..."
• "Excuse me. She just went about 25 seconds over her time there." Moderator Martha Raddatz: "She did not."
• "I think we should be allowed to maybe..." -- I'm pretty sure he was going to say something about being allowed to respond, but he got cut off by Raddatz.
• "You know what's funny? She went over a minute over, and you don't stop her. When I go one second over, it's like a big deal."
Both candidates went over their time limits, but I didn't notice inconsistencies from Cooper/Raddatz in the transcript — they told both candidates when they were going over. I would say that they questioned Trump more often, but that's because he wasn't answering the question or would take a surprising position (like disagreeing with Pence), and they wanted clarification or an on-the-record policy statement.
At the first debate, I didn't notice the sniffles thing that others have mentioned. I did this time, though. His problem is that he's holding the microphone too close to his mouth/nose, and so every inhale gets magnified. This problem could be (should have been) addressed by a little practice.
Facts
Again, here are some links.
Politifact rated 21 Trump statements, and found 7 true/mostly true and 12 false/mostly false. Clinton had 6 rated statements (she made fewer accusations) and 5 were true/mostly true and 1 mostly false. Three other statements by the candidates did not have a rating.
Body Language
I hate talking about body language and format, because it's so subjective. But the town hall format showed a stark difference.
Town halls are meant to have the candidates engage with the audience. Clinton engaged with the questioners. "Are you a teacher?" she asked the first questioner. Later, she says "Mr. Carter..." when answering a question. "It sounds like you're in the business or you're aware of people in the business..." she said to Ken Bone. She often walked over and looked the questioner in the eye as she began her response and usually stuck to the issue, or at least a related sidebar. Both candidates used "That's a great question." Trump rarely addressed the questioner at all.
One final body language issue I want to mention is about Donald Trump, because I don't think he sat down all night. Sitting indicates comfort. Clinton often sat down, showing she was more at ease. While I don't think the claims of "lurking" were all that out of place for the format (Clinton may have intentionally set him up for a couple of those moments), he did pace and stand behind his chair and put the microphone to his lips often — without saying anything, but getting ready to interject. Some called it alpha-male, but it was at the least aggressive. Clinton's not without her faults: When tough issues/accusations came up against Clinton, she tended to smile away her discomfort. That's not as obvious as pacing the room and the on-edge body language of Trump, but it's also not a good look.
Breakdown
My complaints about Clinton remain the same: She falls back on talking points too much. She doesn't react naturally to in-the-moment interaction, so when opportunities arise for a sharp retort, she can't/doesn't seize it. She needs to stop throwing fact checking to her website -- it's lame and probably won't be done. I think many of the accusations Trump threw at her deserved a little more response than simply saying it's all untrue. Even 15 seconds of defense would have been a good use of her time. I get the strategy — take the high road. But not addressing the accusations made her seem dismissive. She was like a football team that won by 10, but had three turnovers. She was good enough, but man, she could have been dominant!
But this debate was, like the election, about Donald Trump. I thought it was the opposite of the first debate. Trump's best part of the first debate was his first 25 minutes, and then he sort of fell apart. This time, he had a terrible first third of the debate, then only kind of composed himself. He was on the attack all night, but often forced attacks in. He almost never presented any of his own policies, rather attacking Obama/Clinton for failure. For instance, the first question asked if they're modeling good behavior for kids. Clinton's answer is positive, talking about goals and being united. Trump speaks for a paragraph about the country being great, then talks negatively about Obamacare, the Iran deal and the trade deficit, as well as bringing back law and order. He didn't address the question at all.
Anderson Cooper brings up the tapes that leaked over the weekend. Trump first denies that he said it, then calls it locker room talk, then apologizes, then reiterates that it's locker room talk. He then spends three paragraphs talking about ISIS, declaring we should move on to other things. There was no transition whatsoever in between: "...locker room talk. You know, when we have a world where you have ISIS chopping off heads...". When Cooper presses him on whether he did the things on the tape, Trump gives a denial then moves to an unrelated issue: "And I will tell you: No, I have not. And I will tell you that I'm going to make our country safe." Clinton then gives a good, detailed answer about this as the latest in a pattern and that it's not what America stands for. Trump wants to respond, and uses his time not to defend himself, but to attack Clinton for not doing enough for upstate New York, blacks, latinos and inner cities. It's a confusing response.
But soon, Raddatz turns the attention back to the tapes. The question: "Trump has said the campaign changed him. When did that change occur?" This is rock bottom for Trump. Trump responds that it was locker room talk, and Bill Clinton's done much worse. However, 1) Bill's not running for president. 2) Let's not go throwing stones, Mr. Glass House. 3) At the last debate, Trump praised himself for not bringing it up and said it was "inappropriate" and "rude." The only thing that changed is that he's now desperate. 4) He blames Hillary for bringing it up — but it was the Washington Post that revealed the story and it was brought up by the questioner, not Hillary. Clinton hadn't yet mentioned it.
After she says that he never apologizes for anything, he throws everything he can in response. Almost all of these are entirely unsubstantiated. He says that Sidney Blumenthal started the birther movement (false). He says that Michelle Obama made videos against her (?). He describes Clinton as the devil. He brings up the email scandal. He says he'll make a special prosecutor look into her situation, as if the FBI hadn't already investigated it. Soon thereafter, he says she'd be in jail. This latter line gets a lot of attention, and those who don't like Clinton will probably cheer it on. However, the FBI has said that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, meaning Trump's calling for his political rival to be jailed. It's a despicable line, and he's continued making it.
Moments later, the issue swings to the emails, and both sides talk about it. Then, Trump strangely asks why Anderson Cooper isn't bringing up the emails. What were you just talking about, then? Soon there's a question from a Muslim woman about how to deal with Islamophobia. In a town hall format, where you're trying to answer questions, Trump really messes this one up. "You're right about Islamophobia, and that's a shame," he said, then turns to describe profiling (a cause of Islamophobia), makes up falsehoods about San Bernardino (more fuel to the Islamophobia fire) and insinuates that Muslims aren't informing on other Muslims (weird). Clinton's response invokes Capt. Khan and Trump's fight with his family, Muhammad Ali and other historic Muslim Americans while saying Muslim Americans are our strongest ally in addressing homegrown terrorism. Trump gets the next question and brings it back to Khan, saying that if he'd been President, Khan would still be alive. SIGH.
He has a terrible run of questions, denying a relationship with Putin when he spoke at least four times between 2013 and 2015 about his relationship with Putin. He later admitted to not paying federal income taxes, then blamed it on Clinton for letting him get away with it. He's trying to shift the blame there — it's like if a guy caught shoplifting says, "It's the store's fault for not stopping me." Trump also accuses Clinton's supporters of doing the same thing (Warren Buffett released his taxes Monday to disprove this point). He then tries to shift the topic to the Middle East. After both get the Syria question, Trump spends two minutes blaming Obama for the mess before Raddatz steers him back. He then throws Mike Pence under the bus, saying they haven't spoken and he disagrees (!).
After some expected answers about the "basket of deplorables" line, Cooper asks Trump about if he has the discipline to be a good leader since he tweeted at 3 a.m. to check out a sex tape (that doesn't exist) of Alicia Machado. Let's break down this response: "No, there wasn't check out a sex tape. [His tweet said "check out sex tape and past."] It was just take a look at the person she built up to be this wonderful Girl Scout who was no Girl Scout. [Clinton only said that you called her Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping, and that Machado would vote. She didn't say she was perfect. Trump is calling attention to Machado's faults as if that gives him license to be offensive.]" Cooper tries to correct him. Trump then talks about Benghazi (?) and a debunked accusation that Clinton was asleep at 3 a.m. the night of the Benghazi attack before saying he's not unproud of the tweets. This man is running for President.
The night ended with three audience questions that were answered by both with nothing truly of note said by either. Trump spent most of his time attacking Obama/Clinton or making easily disproven statements. He hit a lot of right-wing talking points in his attacks, which may make those who hate Clinton jump back on, but he did not talk policy and did not do anything to win over moderates/women/people of color that he will need to win the election. Combined with the Trump tapes (which I may remark on another day), this was a bad weekend for him.
Other Thoughts
• Clinton's answer on the email issue is a glass half full/half empty. She has apologized countless times on a grand stage for it, including at both debates. She's right that no classified information got out of the realm of the government (all who received/sent classified emails had clearance) and the FBI found no intent to evade/hide emails. But she's wrong that the server/email was OK/permitted. Trump rightfully hits her on it and correctly points out when she tries to move on to other questions.
• For the record, here's what the FBI said about the email deletions: The State Department asked for all work-related emails (not a subpoena). Hillary's team goes through the server, sends 30,000 emails, and tells the server company anything older than 60 days should be deleted. Four months later, the eighth Benghazi committee issues a subpoena after the New York Times reveals her private server. Twenty days later, an employee for the server company has an "oh s***" moment and remembers he forgot to delete the Clinton archive and deletes the old emails. The FBI said there was no intent to delete emails to avoid subpoena and that the employee made that decision without any contact from supervisors or the Clinton staff. The FBI found no evidence there was an attempt to conceal, which is kind of the implication.
• Trump said it's not been debunked that he supported the war in Iraq before it began. He's wrong.
• Trump continues to botch one of his endorsements. He was not endorsed by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). He was endorsed by the union of employees that work for ICE.
• Clinton invoked the Spielberg movie "Lincoln" to defend having a public and private view. I saw the movie, so I kind of see where she was coming from, but it was a weak answer. She then tried to turn it onto Trump's tax returns, but Trump capitalized on the opening she gave him by hitting her for not being honest.
• Neither had a great answer on specific tax changes to make sure the wealthy pay their share. Trump would get rid of carried interest and drop the corporate tax rate from 35 to 15 percent (not sure this helps on getting the wealthy to pay their share). Clinton would also get rid of carried interest, prevent tax hikes on those making less than $250,000 and have a surcharge on those making over $5 million. If you want a great breakdown of the tax plans, watch this 10-minute video.
• Clinton's answer on her 30 years of service is a good one. There's a lot of working across the aisle there, and Trump's only response is that she should have done more.
• Trump just throws accusations out there, and many get no attention. Take one where he says she's maybe consulted with the Obama administration in its recent dealings with Russia. I have no idea where he gets that. By saying "possibly," it gives him wiggle room to get out of it.
• Raddatz is a highly respected journalist who has been in many war zones. She's been in Iraq more than a dozen times and has spoken to the generals on the scene. When Trump says that the military is stupid for saying they'll attack Mosul, she tries to defend their logic. I think she should have pressed him, without getting into it herself. Trump does say he's "pretty good at it," with it meaning... military? I'm not certain, but the insinuation is that he's better at this than the current generals.
• Both give party-line answers on the Supreme Court issue. I'd rather both had said they'd appoint judges who are strong in the law rather than say what stances they should/should not take.
Election Update
I'm looking at two things: Polls taken after the first debate on Sept. 27 and polls taken after this weekend. Those after this weekend are trickling in. Almost all of these polls are in the first category.
Presidential
I'll say which of these state polls include data from after this weekend (Trump tapes/second debate), but assume they're all from before this weekend unless I mention it. Iowa's polls are mixed, with one good one showing a small Trump lead and two not-as-reputable polls with decent Clinton leads. However, those last two included some data from after last weekend. I'm moving it to Toss-Up. There have been several polls of Arizona since the first debate, and the two reputable ones show a tie or a small Clinton lead. I'm moving Arizona to Toss-Up. I don't think Colorado is all that close, but one reputable poll had that state a tie while others have a 10-point Clinton lead. I'm going to keep an eye on Colorado, but it stays blue for now. Last week, I moved Florida, North Carolina and Nevada blue. The few new polls since last week still show a small, consistent Clinton lead. Nevada's three polls (all after this weekend) were between tie and +6 for Clinton. Those three stay blue. There have been six polls of Ohio since the first debate. Clinton's led in five. But Trump led by 5 points in the other one, so I was going to keep it Toss-Up. Then a post-this weekend poll had Clinton up 9. It moves blue. I've also seen a poll or two of Nebraska's second district, and it's pretty close. I should also mention that Mormons in Utah are mostly flocking to independent Evan McMullin instead of Trump. A few polls show Clinton and Trump within a few points because McMullin and Gary Johnson are stealing votes. I still think Utah goes Trump, but I'll watch for a few more polls. Arizona, Nebraska's 2nd District and Iowa move to Toss-Up. Ohio moves blue. Toss-Ups: Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska's 2nd district and Maine's 2nd district. States to Watch: Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Iowa, Utah, North Carolina, Colorado. Electoral College: 340 Clinton, 179 Trump, 270 to win. As of next week, I'm eliminating the Toss-Up category.
Senate
Nevada still shows a lead for GOP Joe Heck, but two polls after this weekend have either a tie or a small lead for Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto. I'll make it No Clue for this week. Polls from New Hampshire are split, but I'll watch it: GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte said Trump was "absolutely" a role model, and then apologized, and then this weekend happened. North Carolina polls post-debate show everything between a 2-point Democrat lead to a 5-point GOP lead. Pennsylvania's the same way: polls are everywhere between +6 Democrat and +8 Republican. Most have a Democrat lead, but I'll leave it No Clue for now. I'm going to revisit the Senate campaign in a week or two with more analysis. Pennsylvania and Nevada move to No Clue. No Clue: New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Missouri. +2 Democrat, not enough for a majority. This is probably the closest race of the election, and I'll eliminate the No Clue as of next week.
Summary Judgments
This is the most shocking thing about this election cycle. • • • No one, from Mike Pence to Chris Christie to Paul Ryan to Reince Preibus to Ted Cruz, will defend the Trump tapes. But they'll still vote for him. What in the world would he have to do to lose their vote? • • • Monday morning, Trump has gone to war with his own party. Sigh. • • • I ran the 5K + 3K in a combined time of 56:23. I'm proud of my time, it's roughly an 11-minute/mile pace. That was 10th in my age bracket! I'm acting like that's good! Note: There were only 16 men age 30-39. • • • We went to the pumpkin patch this weekend, and Roland hasn't stopped talking about it. But he can't quite say what he wants. "Ammals!" "Punky Catch!" "Domuss!" Translation: Animals, Pumpkin Patch, Donuts. • • • This may be TMI, but we have an Evie story that I need to write down somewhere. They've been eating a ton of taco meat lately, and last night I went to change Evie's diaper. As I open it up, she said, "Tacos in there!" Yup. Yes there are. Yes. Yuck.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Pence-y For Your Thoughts, or Blazing Kaine?
My initial reaction was that Pence won and did better than Kaine. But the closer I looked at the transcript, the more I thought Kaine did better than we thought and Pence did worse. Pence still won, I think. If Hillary won her debate by KO, then Pence won this one on a split decision by the three judges.
Numbers
The worst thing Tim Kaine did all night was interrupt. I talked about this last time with Trump, but it is just as true for Kaine: Often when you feel like you're losing, you have to interject. Most counts put the interruptions near about 70 for Kaine and about 40 for Pence, but I did my own count. My gut reaction was that Kaine interrupted roughly twice as much. But looking at the transcript, it was closer, with 92 interruptions by Kaine and 72 interruptions for Pence. Now, I'm probably counting a little high there, because I am counting a lot of back-and-forth talk as interruptions. The format was less traditional than the Trump-Clinton debate, and meant to encourage discussion rather than strict time limits. In fact, moderator Elaine Quijano gave both the green light for interrupting early on. Trump interrupted more by a 3:1 margin. Kaine interrupted more than Pence, but not quite by a 2:1 margin.
I also talked last time about speaking time, and all the counts I found put Pence at talking for about 3 minutes more than Kaine. I definitely felt the time difference with Trump, but didn't necessarily feel that way with Pence.
Let's talk about strength. I picked up about halfway through that was Pence's go-to word. And the numbers bear it out: He said strength/strong/strengthen three times as often as Kaine. When you include his contrast word, weak (always used to describe Obama foreign policy), he used strength/strong/strengthen/weak 39 times. Kaine used those words 11 times.
Reactions
I didn't hear much complaining about the moderators or microphones or what have you from either side. It's not like the blame game that happened after the first presidential debate.
Facts
Here are some links: CNN. Washington Post.
Politifact rated 32 claims: 18 by Kaine, and 13 were true/mostly true. 1 was mostly false/false. Pence had 11 claims, with 4 mostly true/true and 5 mostly false/false. Another 3 claims fall into the eye of the beholder (Trump didn't know if Russia invaded Crimea, a trio of claims by Pence about Hillary's immigration views where two were false and one was true, and whether Putin persecutes journalists).
Breakdown
Pence was more comfortable, I thought, which made him appear to win the debate. He's a former talk radio host, and he came across as calm and pretty good at saying what he wants to say — it rarely felt like he was rushing and that made him look like he was in control. He often tried to turn the tables onto Clinton rather than answer tough questions. It was when you actually pay attention to what he said that he doesn't come across well.
(Quick aside: There were several times in looking at the transcript that the moderator was trying to stop Pence, but he'd barrel through anyway and talk for another paragraph. This may have led to some interruptions on Kaine's part, but the public doesn't know that — that might be helpful in future debates. If there's something as clear as a light or bell or something, that helps us decide if one person is over his time, or if the other is interrupting his time.)
I think CNN commentator Gloria Berger hit the nail on the head about Mike Pence: "He was better at attacking Clinton than defending Trump." When asked early why voters don't like Trump, Pence spoke all but two sentences about Clinton. When Kaine gives a detailed answer about fighting terrorism and dares Pence to defend several dangerous Trump claims, Pence spends the entire time talking about Obama/Clinton failures rather than defend the Trump claims. He denied that Trump said he'd punish women who had abortions (he did, but later pulled back from it), while attacking Hillary for supporting partial birth abortions (she's on the record against those).
There were a couple of policy inventions by Pence that didn't sound like Trump or were seemingly at odds with what he's said: Calling for "full and complete and transparent investigations" is not a position Trump has made, and safe zones in Syria is definitely not a Trump policy. He also talked tough about Putin, which is contrary to many Trump statements about working with Putin.
Kaine was guilty of interrupting, and that's a bad sin. Even if you're right (and we'll get to that in a minute), it comes across as rude. There were many times when the moderator was trying to steer Pence back to defending a Trump position or actually answering the question, and Kaine jumped in instead. He should have let Pence answer the questions directly. Some of Kaine's answers (You're Trump's apprentice, can't tell the difference...) were canned and he seemed overeager to make his points. When given the chance to do so, he spoke fairly well and made good points. But he was so ready to make them that he pounced all over Pence.
But what hurt Kaine the most is that even when he's right, he either interrupted or let Pence off the hook. Kaine's first interruption is to say that Pence/Trump praise Putin. He's right, but he interrupted the moderator, who was trying to get Pence to actually answer the question instead of attacking Clinton. In one exchange, Kaine makes a good point — you won't defend your own voting record — but he comes off as rude because he's interrupting. When Kaine does get a chance to speak, he often quoted Donald Trump — this is what your candidate said. His lines are effective when he talks, but he's so eager to give them that he talks over Pence. Kaine gave one of the best defenses of the Clinton Foundation I've heard this campaign season, and contrasted that with the Trump Foundation effectively, while every Pence claim was false about the Clinton Foundation's work.
Here's the debate in a nutshell: Pence is asked what he'd say to Republican Sen. Tim Scott, who testified on the Senate floor that he is stopped frequently because he is black. Pence gives a long answer and Kaine feels it's his turn -- he starts to interrupt. But the moderator never got the answer to her question, and presses Pence again. Pence then supports stop-and-frisk, which was a) ineffective b) ruled unconstitutional and c) probably not the thing you want to say to Scott: effectively that you'll be stopped and frisked more often. But at the end of Pence's answer, Kaine wants his turn and tries to jump in, but Quijano again says to Pence that this is about what he'd tell Sen. Scott. But Kaine is so itching to answer that he just takes the question. The moderator has asked Pence to answer the question three times — he doesn't have a good answer. But Kaine jumping in and stealing the question lets Pence off the hook. What Kaine says is important and a good point: This is about respect, and Donald Trump has shown he has no respect for [laundry list of insults here]. He basically dares Pence to defend it. But what he's done is interrupted, let Pence off the hook on responding to an actual black person affected by such issues, and changed the subject.
But by Thursday morning, none of the major websites (CNN, NBC, Fox) had VP debate news stories on their front page. It's already old news. And with another debate coming on Sunday between Trump and Clinton, I just don't think this one will have much impact. That one is a town hall debate, which I think is better for Trump than the last format. Trump feeds off (positive) energy from crowds, and I think seeing them and playing off them is better for him. We will see on Sunday.
Other notes
• Pence praised the school hosting the debate as Norwood University. The school is Longwood University.
• Pence talked about a war on coal, but Obama's policies aren't hurting coal — it's the rise of natural gas as a cheaper, cleaner energy source that is hurting coal.
• One of the proposals by Kaine on the economy is investing in manufacturing. Manufacturing jobs are falling because of technology and not because of outsourcing. That said, his proposals were far more detailed than Pence's.
• Pence brings up the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a failure of Clinton. That was under John Kerry's watch.
• Kaine said he challenged Pence six times to defend his running mate, and he can't, while asking everyone to vote for someone he can't defend was his most powerful line. I looked up the six times. Four of the times Pence either had no defense or said something like "Clinton/Obama was just as bad." Once Pence denied Trump said that (he did, though.). And the other was a weird comment about how black cops can't be biased against other black people. Kaine was, for the most part, right. Much later in the debate, Pence did try to defend one of those things, but got the quote wrong.
• Kaine was wrong about who said Trump has dealings with Russian businessmen — that was Trump's son, not Trump himself. But later in the debate, he makes the same point twice and gets his source right both times.
• Kaine was asked about North Korea, and gives a long answer. Oddly, Pence is not asked the same question.
• There was a good question about when they had a faith/public policy struggle. Kaine gives a detailed, nuanced answer about the death penalty. Pence uses the question as a platform to talk about all the steps he's taken against abortion. Didn't seem like a struggle.
• The abortion question was the most honest discussion of the Democrat-Republican divide I've seen. It was good. For Republicans, abortion is always wrong, period. For Democrats like Kaine, they may personally abhor it, but they don't feel that they should impose that belief on nonbelievers. You don't hear this type of view on a national stage often.
• There were several moments of respectfulness between the two, and I liked that. More of that, please.
• I liked that Pence was pro-adoption, but I don't think you'll find many who are against adoption.
• Kaine mentions the $64,000 question. That is a reference to a show that went off the air the same year Tim Kaine and my parents were born.
Election Update
Presidential
BIG CHANGES. The debate has changed a lot. Nevada looked like it was leaning Trump before the debate. But there have been four decent polls since then, and one had a tie while three gave a lead for Clinton (1-point lead, 3-point lead and 6-point lead). I'm going to move it blue for now, but it's probably closer to toss-up. Ohio's had three polls since the debate. Two for Clinton, one for Trump. It moves to Toss-Up. I'm moving Florida slightly blue. There have been six polls since the debate: one showed a tie, one had a one-point Trump lead, and the other four showed Clinton leads of 2-5 points. That seems a trend to me. More polling shows that Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are unlikely Trump wins. He hasn't led a poll in any of those states since the RNC. Remember how Colorado nearly went to Toss-Up? Forget it. Three polls since the debate show a nearly double-digit Clinton lead. Five polls of North Carolina since the debate, and five leads for Clinton. Also, a couple polls of Maine's second district have it going each direction, so I'm moving it back to toss-up. Nevada moves blue. Florida moves blue. North Carolina moves blue. Ohio moves to Toss-Up. Toss-Up States: Ohio, Maine's 2nd district. States to Watch: Ohio, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina. Electoral College: 322 Clinton, 197 Trump, 270 to win
Senate
I think for sure the Democrats pick up three seats (WI, IL, IN) and likely lose one (NV, though that's a real tough call). That's +2. They need two more to swing to win back the Senate if they win the White House. Their best bets are North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Missouri. Two more polls of New Hampshire show a 2 and 3-point lead for the Democrat while another shows a 6-point lead for the Republican. So... No Clue. The last three polls of Pennsylvania show a 3-5 point lead for Democratic challenger Kelly McGinty over incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Toomey, but one other poll has a decent Toomey lead. I'm going to go ahead and give Democrats the seat for now, because of the trend, but it may move back to No Clue with more polling. North Carolina is too close to call. The Cook Political Report just moved the Missouri Senate race into their Toss-Up category. I already had it there. But there is surprisingly little poll data to use in Missouri. Pennsylvania moves blue. No Clue: New Hampshire, North Carolina, Missouri. +3 Democrat, not enough for a majority.
Summary Judgments
I wonder if this weekend's Presidential Debate might get overshadowed by Hurricane Matthew. It's a reminder that there are bigger things to worry about than Trump-Clinton. • • • My race is on Sunday. I've prepared for the 5K part, and think I'm ready. I have not prepared at all for the subsequent +3K part. That'll be an adventure. • • • Evie is going to be our future nurse. She's really sweet whenever Roland gets hurt. He got stung by a bee at daycare, and she sat next to him and said "Iss OK. Iss OK." Then today, they got flu shots and she went first. After she got a Band-Aid, Roland got his shot, and she did the same thing. She's very nurturing when Roland or anyone is hurting.
Numbers
The worst thing Tim Kaine did all night was interrupt. I talked about this last time with Trump, but it is just as true for Kaine: Often when you feel like you're losing, you have to interject. Most counts put the interruptions near about 70 for Kaine and about 40 for Pence, but I did my own count. My gut reaction was that Kaine interrupted roughly twice as much. But looking at the transcript, it was closer, with 92 interruptions by Kaine and 72 interruptions for Pence. Now, I'm probably counting a little high there, because I am counting a lot of back-and-forth talk as interruptions. The format was less traditional than the Trump-Clinton debate, and meant to encourage discussion rather than strict time limits. In fact, moderator Elaine Quijano gave both the green light for interrupting early on. Trump interrupted more by a 3:1 margin. Kaine interrupted more than Pence, but not quite by a 2:1 margin.
I also talked last time about speaking time, and all the counts I found put Pence at talking for about 3 minutes more than Kaine. I definitely felt the time difference with Trump, but didn't necessarily feel that way with Pence.
Let's talk about strength. I picked up about halfway through that was Pence's go-to word. And the numbers bear it out: He said strength/strong/strengthen three times as often as Kaine. When you include his contrast word, weak (always used to describe Obama foreign policy), he used strength/strong/strengthen/weak 39 times. Kaine used those words 11 times.
Reactions
I didn't hear much complaining about the moderators or microphones or what have you from either side. It's not like the blame game that happened after the first presidential debate.
Facts
Here are some links: CNN. Washington Post.
Politifact rated 32 claims: 18 by Kaine, and 13 were true/mostly true. 1 was mostly false/false. Pence had 11 claims, with 4 mostly true/true and 5 mostly false/false. Another 3 claims fall into the eye of the beholder (Trump didn't know if Russia invaded Crimea, a trio of claims by Pence about Hillary's immigration views where two were false and one was true, and whether Putin persecutes journalists).
Breakdown
Pence was more comfortable, I thought, which made him appear to win the debate. He's a former talk radio host, and he came across as calm and pretty good at saying what he wants to say — it rarely felt like he was rushing and that made him look like he was in control. He often tried to turn the tables onto Clinton rather than answer tough questions. It was when you actually pay attention to what he said that he doesn't come across well.
(Quick aside: There were several times in looking at the transcript that the moderator was trying to stop Pence, but he'd barrel through anyway and talk for another paragraph. This may have led to some interruptions on Kaine's part, but the public doesn't know that — that might be helpful in future debates. If there's something as clear as a light or bell or something, that helps us decide if one person is over his time, or if the other is interrupting his time.)
I think CNN commentator Gloria Berger hit the nail on the head about Mike Pence: "He was better at attacking Clinton than defending Trump." When asked early why voters don't like Trump, Pence spoke all but two sentences about Clinton. When Kaine gives a detailed answer about fighting terrorism and dares Pence to defend several dangerous Trump claims, Pence spends the entire time talking about Obama/Clinton failures rather than defend the Trump claims. He denied that Trump said he'd punish women who had abortions (he did, but later pulled back from it), while attacking Hillary for supporting partial birth abortions (she's on the record against those).
There were a couple of policy inventions by Pence that didn't sound like Trump or were seemingly at odds with what he's said: Calling for "full and complete and transparent investigations" is not a position Trump has made, and safe zones in Syria is definitely not a Trump policy. He also talked tough about Putin, which is contrary to many Trump statements about working with Putin.
Kaine was guilty of interrupting, and that's a bad sin. Even if you're right (and we'll get to that in a minute), it comes across as rude. There were many times when the moderator was trying to steer Pence back to defending a Trump position or actually answering the question, and Kaine jumped in instead. He should have let Pence answer the questions directly. Some of Kaine's answers (You're Trump's apprentice, can't tell the difference...) were canned and he seemed overeager to make his points. When given the chance to do so, he spoke fairly well and made good points. But he was so ready to make them that he pounced all over Pence.
But what hurt Kaine the most is that even when he's right, he either interrupted or let Pence off the hook. Kaine's first interruption is to say that Pence/Trump praise Putin. He's right, but he interrupted the moderator, who was trying to get Pence to actually answer the question instead of attacking Clinton. In one exchange, Kaine makes a good point — you won't defend your own voting record — but he comes off as rude because he's interrupting. When Kaine does get a chance to speak, he often quoted Donald Trump — this is what your candidate said. His lines are effective when he talks, but he's so eager to give them that he talks over Pence. Kaine gave one of the best defenses of the Clinton Foundation I've heard this campaign season, and contrasted that with the Trump Foundation effectively, while every Pence claim was false about the Clinton Foundation's work.
Here's the debate in a nutshell: Pence is asked what he'd say to Republican Sen. Tim Scott, who testified on the Senate floor that he is stopped frequently because he is black. Pence gives a long answer and Kaine feels it's his turn -- he starts to interrupt. But the moderator never got the answer to her question, and presses Pence again. Pence then supports stop-and-frisk, which was a) ineffective b) ruled unconstitutional and c) probably not the thing you want to say to Scott: effectively that you'll be stopped and frisked more often. But at the end of Pence's answer, Kaine wants his turn and tries to jump in, but Quijano again says to Pence that this is about what he'd tell Sen. Scott. But Kaine is so itching to answer that he just takes the question. The moderator has asked Pence to answer the question three times — he doesn't have a good answer. But Kaine jumping in and stealing the question lets Pence off the hook. What Kaine says is important and a good point: This is about respect, and Donald Trump has shown he has no respect for [laundry list of insults here]. He basically dares Pence to defend it. But what he's done is interrupted, let Pence off the hook on responding to an actual black person affected by such issues, and changed the subject.
But by Thursday morning, none of the major websites (CNN, NBC, Fox) had VP debate news stories on their front page. It's already old news. And with another debate coming on Sunday between Trump and Clinton, I just don't think this one will have much impact. That one is a town hall debate, which I think is better for Trump than the last format. Trump feeds off (positive) energy from crowds, and I think seeing them and playing off them is better for him. We will see on Sunday.
Other notes
• Pence praised the school hosting the debate as Norwood University. The school is Longwood University.
• Pence talked about a war on coal, but Obama's policies aren't hurting coal — it's the rise of natural gas as a cheaper, cleaner energy source that is hurting coal.
• One of the proposals by Kaine on the economy is investing in manufacturing. Manufacturing jobs are falling because of technology and not because of outsourcing. That said, his proposals were far more detailed than Pence's.
• Pence brings up the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a failure of Clinton. That was under John Kerry's watch.
• Kaine said he challenged Pence six times to defend his running mate, and he can't, while asking everyone to vote for someone he can't defend was his most powerful line. I looked up the six times. Four of the times Pence either had no defense or said something like "Clinton/Obama was just as bad." Once Pence denied Trump said that (he did, though.). And the other was a weird comment about how black cops can't be biased against other black people. Kaine was, for the most part, right. Much later in the debate, Pence did try to defend one of those things, but got the quote wrong.
• Kaine was wrong about who said Trump has dealings with Russian businessmen — that was Trump's son, not Trump himself. But later in the debate, he makes the same point twice and gets his source right both times.
• Kaine was asked about North Korea, and gives a long answer. Oddly, Pence is not asked the same question.
• There was a good question about when they had a faith/public policy struggle. Kaine gives a detailed, nuanced answer about the death penalty. Pence uses the question as a platform to talk about all the steps he's taken against abortion. Didn't seem like a struggle.
• The abortion question was the most honest discussion of the Democrat-Republican divide I've seen. It was good. For Republicans, abortion is always wrong, period. For Democrats like Kaine, they may personally abhor it, but they don't feel that they should impose that belief on nonbelievers. You don't hear this type of view on a national stage often.
• There were several moments of respectfulness between the two, and I liked that. More of that, please.
• I liked that Pence was pro-adoption, but I don't think you'll find many who are against adoption.
• Kaine mentions the $64,000 question. That is a reference to a show that went off the air the same year Tim Kaine and my parents were born.
Election Update
Presidential
BIG CHANGES. The debate has changed a lot. Nevada looked like it was leaning Trump before the debate. But there have been four decent polls since then, and one had a tie while three gave a lead for Clinton (1-point lead, 3-point lead and 6-point lead). I'm going to move it blue for now, but it's probably closer to toss-up. Ohio's had three polls since the debate. Two for Clinton, one for Trump. It moves to Toss-Up. I'm moving Florida slightly blue. There have been six polls since the debate: one showed a tie, one had a one-point Trump lead, and the other four showed Clinton leads of 2-5 points. That seems a trend to me. More polling shows that Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are unlikely Trump wins. He hasn't led a poll in any of those states since the RNC. Remember how Colorado nearly went to Toss-Up? Forget it. Three polls since the debate show a nearly double-digit Clinton lead. Five polls of North Carolina since the debate, and five leads for Clinton. Also, a couple polls of Maine's second district have it going each direction, so I'm moving it back to toss-up. Nevada moves blue. Florida moves blue. North Carolina moves blue. Ohio moves to Toss-Up. Toss-Up States: Ohio, Maine's 2nd district. States to Watch: Ohio, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina. Electoral College: 322 Clinton, 197 Trump, 270 to win
Senate
I think for sure the Democrats pick up three seats (WI, IL, IN) and likely lose one (NV, though that's a real tough call). That's +2. They need two more to swing to win back the Senate if they win the White House. Their best bets are North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Missouri. Two more polls of New Hampshire show a 2 and 3-point lead for the Democrat while another shows a 6-point lead for the Republican. So... No Clue. The last three polls of Pennsylvania show a 3-5 point lead for Democratic challenger Kelly McGinty over incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Toomey, but one other poll has a decent Toomey lead. I'm going to go ahead and give Democrats the seat for now, because of the trend, but it may move back to No Clue with more polling. North Carolina is too close to call. The Cook Political Report just moved the Missouri Senate race into their Toss-Up category. I already had it there. But there is surprisingly little poll data to use in Missouri. Pennsylvania moves blue. No Clue: New Hampshire, North Carolina, Missouri. +3 Democrat, not enough for a majority.
Summary Judgments
I wonder if this weekend's Presidential Debate might get overshadowed by Hurricane Matthew. It's a reminder that there are bigger things to worry about than Trump-Clinton. • • • My race is on Sunday. I've prepared for the 5K part, and think I'm ready. I have not prepared at all for the subsequent +3K part. That'll be an adventure. • • • Evie is going to be our future nurse. She's really sweet whenever Roland gets hurt. He got stung by a bee at daycare, and she sat next to him and said "Iss OK. Iss OK." Then today, they got flu shots and she went first. After she got a Band-Aid, Roland got his shot, and she did the same thing. She's very nurturing when Roland or anyone is hurting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)