Thanksgiving is next week, and I am excited. It's a few days off from work, it's time with the family, it's lots of food — what's not to love? It's three days off at least for most people, and two of those aren't the holiday itself. But is it the best holiday? Let's find out.
I'm only including bank holidays here, so I'm not ranking National Talk Like a Pirate Day (Sept. 19) or National Chocolate Covered Raisins Day (March 24) or *SIGH* Make Up Your Own Holiday Day (March 26). Yes, that last one is a real thing. I'm ranking these based on how much you look forward to it, how relaxing it is and the festivities that go with them. I'm also ranking them worst to first, because this is my ranking and because I want to build suspense. Now you know my logic.
10. Columbus Day -- The worst. Most people don't even get this day off, most people don't even know it's happening, and I can honestly say I don't know a single celebration that takes place for this day. To top it off, we're celebrating someone who a) didn't discover America b) helped introduce colonialism c) was not a great guy to those who already live in the Americas and d) was maybe not the greatest guy. So... why do we celebrate this? I don't know.
9. Washington's Birthday/President's Day -- Much of what I said about Columbus Day goes for this, too. Most of us don't actually get the day off, most don't know it's happening, and I don't know how to celebrate it. It's not actually on George Washington's birthday, which was Feb. 22: This year, the holiday fell on Feb. 15. In 2015, it fell on Feb. 16, and next year, it'll be on Feb. 20. It almost never actually falls on Washington's Birthday. But this is slightly better because it's at least celebrating a good man/great president. Washington is FAR more respectable than Columbus, even factoring in the whole "owned slaves" thing and the "nearly lost the Revolutionary War" thing.
8. MLK Day -- Like the two previously mentioned holidays, most don't get this day off. That said, there are at least celebrations for MLK Day. In Pittsburg, there was a good event/celebration in Fort Scott. Here in Liberty, William Jewell hosts the Northland's MLK Day celebration. It's a reason to bring people together for racial harmony — and that's a good cause that we don't celebrate enough. MLK stands up to the lens of history well.
7. Veterans Day -- At least it's the same day every year -- this gives it an edge. Further, there are celebrations to be found, like MLK Day. There were a ton of celebrations in Crawford County. I'm sure there are more here, but I don't know them yet. However, most people don't get off for Veterans Day, so in order to celebrate our veterans, you have to take a day off. That's not great, even if the cause is wonderful.
6. Memorial Day -- Take everything I said about Veterans Day. Add in having the day off in the late spring/early summer. Add in barbecue/outdoors activities. Slightly different purpose than Veterans Day (veterans who died v. veterans in general). Upgrade.
5. Labor Day -- I totally understand if you place this below Memorial Day. But this is my list. And Labor Day is almost always when we celebrate my birthday. Further, most get the day off, and it's just a relaxing day that is much needed, since the previous holiday was more than two months before. Memorial Day has the unofficial holiday of Easter within spitting distance.
4. New Year's Day -- There's not really any celebrations related to New Year's Day that I can think of, just college football and the Rose Bowl Parade. But those are fun! Plus, there's hanging out with your family without having to go anywhere or do anything. It's just relaxing and chill and wonderful. You get a brand new start on a new year when none of your favorite actors/musicians/political leaders/heroes have died and nothing has ruined your year... it's a hopeful day. Also, if it lands on a weekend, you get Jan. 2 off as a bonus. Sweet! Bonus lazy day!
3. Independence Day/Fourth of July -- You get the day off. That's nice. It's a summer day, so you get all the outdoors/barbecue stuff of Memorial/Labor Day. There are celebrations all over the place, it's just a matter of deciding which to attend. That said, you can also just stay at home and watch from your backyard. Which brings up the final aspect: fireworks. But that's good and bad. It's good, because BOOM EXPLOSIONS FIRE WHEE! But it's bad because it scares Roland right now, the explosions last for a little bit too long both the night of the celebration and the week of the 4th. With the exception of the 3rd and 4th, it's kind of annoying to have fireworks all the dang time.
2. Christmas Day -- Most people get several days around Christmas off. There's a ton of Christmas cookies and decorations. There's all the festivities that go with Christmas, whether religious ("Happy birthday Jesus," Roland said recently) or otherwise (trees! MST3K "Santa Claus"! MST3K "Santa Claus v. the Martians"! Egg nog?). You get gifts and also give gifts to your family. You get to see some of your family for the only time during the year. So much excitement. But it's in the middle of winter, so it's not like you can get outside without layers. Also, all that stuff I just mentioned is a little overkill. You're constantly trying to clean up or get ready for this thing or that thing or prepare for this celebration or make sure your shoes are shiny for church or... It's exhilarating, but also exhausting.
1. Thanksgiving Day -- While the bank holiday is only the Thursday, most people get Friday off and many get Wednesday off, too. You get to travel, but there's really only one tradition: Make and eat a fancy dinner. It's far more relaxing than Christmas, the weather can sometimes be accommodating for jacketed play outdoors, and there are a few Thanksgiving traditions that can be on TV in the background (Macy's Parade, 2-3 football games) as you mingle with family. It's relaxing, it's the rare occasion to use your nice china, and you get to see family without the pressure of rushing from event to event, unless you're into Black Friday. Enjoy the best holiday next week.
Two Quasi-Political (But Not Political) Tangents Limited to One Paragraph Each
• I've seen a lot of those upset on the left/Democrat side complaining about the electoral college lately, and I've seen Republicans defend the electoral college. I think it's important to note that of the four times the electoral college was won by someone who didn't win the popular vote, it's been Republicans over Democrats all four times. I wonder what would happen if that ever started evening out. However, in looking at the electoral college, a political science professor that I'm friends with analyzed what would happen if each state divided its electors proportionally instead of winner-take-all. His result was a 269-269 tie. I took a slightly different tactic and imagined that each state had two "Senate" electors that voted based on who won the state. The remainder, the "House" electors, voted proportionally (*D.C. only gets "House" electors). My result was Trump won, but only by about 12-13 electoral votes. Gary Johnson actually won 2. I think both of these are a lot more reflective of the nation's desires and split allegiances than the real-world electoral college.
• I heard an interesting metaphor that has really got me thinking. John Oliver, in his half-hour election wrap, referred to media consumption as a diet. That's an incredible comparison. Americans tend to get too much junk in our diet, from sources that aren't necessarily good for us. We want to consume what we want, but the more mature we get, we realize that we need variety in our diets, and to eat less exciting things because they're better in the long run. Consider your own media diet. Are you getting your media from bad sources, like Facebook, Breitbart, Fox News, Daily Kos, MSNBC's opinion hosts, etc.? Or are you seeking out good sources, like ABC News, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Politifact, or the Wall Street Journal? Are you consuming different sources, including something you don't normally enjoy, because it's better for you? It's certainly got me to re-evaluate my sources, and consider investing in a subscription to my local newspaper(s).
Summary Judgments
I've been trying to avoid getting into political arguments on Facebook this week/month, but I need a temporary break from the divisiveness of politics. I could feel myself becoming the type of pundit/analyst that I hate. It's hard to tell yourself to stop caring about something. It's like a break-up: The only way to get over it is to find someone/something new. • • • Don't let me down, Chiefs. • • • I've started watching Dr. Who. Alyson's seen them all. I've seen one or two there. I'm now two episodes into it, and I'm liking it so far. So far, I'm not down on Christopher Eccleston, though I know everyone else, including him, is down on his time as the Dr. Is it as bad as I've heard? • • • This is how fracking causes earthquakes. • • • This is the type of analysis we need more of. Foxtrot Alpha takes an in-depth look at our President-Elect's Defense Plan. It's knowledgeable and able to state opinions without being smug. • • • Speaking of smug, I've been really mulling this article about the "smug style of American liberalism." I saw a friend link it recently, and I'm captivated by many of the arguments it puts forward. I think they're on to something — liberals come off as smug, which is a turn-off to many Americans — but I also think they might go too far with the self-flagellation about it. • • • I was going to practice running some so that I could get in shape for a Thanksgiving morning 5K. However, two things got in my way: 1) Daylight Savings Time didn't hit until 3 weeks before the race, so I couldn't run at 6:30 a.m., since it wasn't light enough yet and 2) The mornings when after Falling Back when I had a plan in place and I was going to run were also the days Roland decided to wake up at 3 a.m. or 4:30 a.m. and never go back to sleep. So I'm not running a Thanksgiving 5K this year. • • • However, I do have good news for running: I turn 32 next year, and a 5K is roughly 3.1/3.2 miles, so if I run 10 5Ks next year, I'll run 32 miles at 32. That's my challenge to myself. First race: March 4, so I'll start training the second week of January. • • • We have good news about Alyson (She's not pregnant... Lordy, lordy... no.... no). But it's not my news to tell. So I'll let her do that first. • • • This morning, Evie cleared the bricks in front of the fireplace and told me to sit down. I did. She smiled and cuddled up to me. "Do you want me to take a picture?" I asked. "Yeah." So I did. It's probably my favorite picture of the two of us this year, and it's all because she wanted to be near me. That makes a person feel quite special.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Calling it a Wrap
I'm going to take a break from talking about politics for about a month after this. I think I need it for my soul. But I feel it's my obligation to explain what happened, why those on the left feel so hurt and fearful because of this election, and what you can expect in the next four years.
What Happened
Let's go back to the idea of the "firewall" states for Hillary Clinton. They added up to 273 electoral college votes. Her firewall included Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Those were considered safe states because they'd voted Democrat almost my entire life — Michigan since 1992 and the other two since 1988. And when those were close and going more and more red around 8:30 p.m., it was the end. With North Carolina and Florida pretty much sealed off to her by then, she became reliant on the firewall, and the firewall couldn't hold.
So were the polls off?
Yes, but not as much as you think. Nate Silver, the famed analyst/number cruncher, is one of my favorite reads. He gave Trump about a 1 in 3 chance of winning (29 percent in his final data set). While that sounds bad, consider that most other political number pundits (numbits?) had Trump at only a 5-10 percent chance. So he was more right than the others. Anyway, he noted that the aggregation of the polls showed a 3-4 percent Clinton lead in the popular vote. She'll end up winning the popular vote by 1-2 percent. That's a fairly typical polling error either way. Marist College, one of the better pollsters out there, showed a 1 percent lead for Clinton in their final poll — they were right! On the other hand, the LA Times/USC poll seemed to show positive results for Trump throughout. They were the outlier, and many dismissed them. The LA Times seemed to brag yesterday about how justified they'd been all along. But they were even more wrong. Their final analysis was that Trump had a 3 point lead nationally. If Clinton won the popular vote by 1-2 percent, that means the LA Times poll was 4-5 percent off! Although it showed a greater Trump lead, it also was farther off than more traditional pollsters.
But prognosticators were wrong, so what gives?
Nate Silver's model says that the states are not independent of each other. For example, if North Dakota votes one way, South Dakota is probably going to follow to some extent. That was the case in the Upper Midwest. While we can't say which was the first domino, if Michigan flips, that meant Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were more likely to flip. Maybe it was Ohio that flipped first. And in swing states like North Carolina and Florida, both of which Trump won narrowly, polls showed Clinton with a lead.
There's some evidence that Trump voters did not like to tell their votes to other people. Trump did better in automated call polls than in live call polls. So there's some evidence that they were shy about broadcasting their vote. The LA Times/USC pollers found that was particularly true for women voters. And when we look at the best data available from the election, we also see stark demographic splits:
Clinton won women by 12 points. Trump won men by 12 points. Clinton won those under 45. Trump won those over 45. Trump won both white men (by 32) and white women (by 10). Clinton won every minority group by at least 29 points. Clinton won college graduates. Trump won those who didn't graduate college (though he won white college graduates, but not white college graduate women). Trump won those who make over $50,000. Clinton won those who make under $50,000. Even on the issue 52 percent of Americans found most important — the economy — Clinton won. But when asked their reason for voting, the biggest reason — change — went heavily to Trump. These are not small divides. These are big differences. It tells me that we are as divided as ever.
The most succinct answer I saw about what changed was from a source that I now can't find. But what they tweeted was that white non-college educated people, who represent somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of the electorate, decided they were a minority and were going to vote like one. That would explain the shift in the Upper Midwest, where economic recovery has been slower than the rest of the country.
One final reminder for those celebrating this win on the right: A swing of 1 voter in 100 would have given Clinton a win not only in North Carolina, but also in the Upper Midwest. While she was horribly unpopular now, the Democrats won't be running a Clinton next election cycle. Also, more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. That cannot be forgotten or ignored — this was not a mandate from the people.
What Happens Now
Before I go on, I should mention the Senate stayed Republican, 52-48. What happened? Quite simply, red states voted for GOP senators and blue states voted for Democrat senators. The states in which Democrats either won seats or held on (Nevada, New Hampshire, Illinois) all went to Clinton. The states in which Trump won meant that the close Senate races there went GOP, too (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, North Carolina).
So this means the country will have a Republican President, a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and you can bet your bottom dollar that it'll have a Republican Supreme Court in about four months. There is talk that Rudy Giuliani could be the Attorney General. Chris Christie, whose top aides were just convicted in Bridgegate, could have a Cabinet post. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, the most unpopular governor in the country, is being considered for Agriculture Secretary. Newt Gingrich could be Secretary of State. If you're noticing a theme, there is one: formerly disgraced, staunchly conservative white men. And don't expect this to change in 2018: the Senate map is terrible for Democrats, as I predicted months ago. So let me put this in italics: The GOP can do whatever they want for the next four years. Months ago, we were talking about the House or Senate being a check on Clinton. Now, there is no check on President Trump.
Why Those on the Left Are Taking This Personally
If the right lost, it was just a political loss for them — it didn't affect their personal identity if Obamacare remained or the country continued Obama-era policies. It just meant things weren't going the way they liked.
But for the left, this loss is not just political, their personal identities are possibly under attack based on Trump's stated positions:
• LGBT people are concerned that with a conservative Supreme Court and Republicans completely in power, they will no longer be protected by the law. They're worried that their rights to marry the person they want are in jeopardy. They're frightened that their rights could go backwards, even. They're almost certain that in states like Kansas or Oklahoma, there will be no way to prevent them from being fired or kicked out of their home simply for being gay (currently legal, by the way).
• Black people are worried that Trump will carry through on his campaign promises of brutal and unconstitutional police tactics. They're scared of stop-and-frisk — ruled unconstitutional because it targeted minorities, but touted by Trump anyway. They're worried that our president-elect has continued to declare minority men like the Central Park Five guilty and deserving of jail time, even though DNA evidence has cleared them and a sixth man admitted to the crime. They're worried because he believes inner cities are third world countries. They're worried that the candidate endorsed by the KKK and championed by white supremacists has now gained unchecked power.
• Latinos are scared to death. They're worried that undocumented immigrants, perhaps their father or brother or even them, could be rounded up and shipped to Mexico. They're afraid of a wall that seems to demonize Mexican immigrants. They are afraid of a man whose campaign began with the idea that Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers, but he assumed (!) that some — not many — were good people. The mass deportation, once ruled unconstitutional when done in California in decades past, could separate families. They feel under attack.
• Journalists are worried. I know I am, and I'm no longer a journalist, really. Trump has attacked those in the media and stoked the fire of his supporters at the media. One supporter at a recent Trump rally wore a shirt that said "Tree. Rope. Journalist. Some Assembly Required." THAT SCARES ME PERSONALLY. He's advocated loosening the libel laws so that he can use his large pocketbooks to attack journalists. He's attacked Megyn Kelly, a right-leaning Fox News host of all people, for daring to question him about his views on women.
• Muslim-Americans are worried for their lives and livelihoods. Hassan Minaj on The Daily Show gave an incredibly heartfelt speech about how his mother, who immigrated to America years ago, is out of the country right now, but is frantically asking if she'll be allowed to come back in February. I have Muslim friends that are worried about harassment and the emboldening of Islamophobes.
• There are a large number of women I know who are depressed. For instance, I have a friend who was raped and tortured (the man was convicted). Trump bragged about sexual assault on those tapes but denied it ever happened, then nearly a dozen women came forth to say it had happened. Yet America has said that doesn't matter — put him in the highest office. She's afraid that this will only embolden horrible actions by men, because if Trump can do it and face no consequences, then anyone can.
• That brings me to my final group of people afraid. Well, not afraid, but perhaps concerned. I know many parents, albeit left-leaning, who have paid attention this election cycle. And what this election has done is say that there are no off-limits anymore. You can be as caustic, as vile, as rude, as mean, as interrupting as you want to whomever you want. And that's no longer a disqualifier for our highest office. This is a threat to those who feel that morality is important in our leaders.
UPDATE: • I forgot one group. I have friends, including two close ones, who are reliant on Obamacare provisions. Before Obamacare kicked in, pre-existing conditions prevented them from getting health insurance. Without health insurance, they could not have gotten the surgeries and treatment they needed to survive. Without the provisions of Obamacare, these two friends would be either dead in one case or not able to work in the other. Obamacare has literally saved their lives. And they are scared to death that the promises made to repeal Obamacare will put their future in jeopardy.
Again, this will be my last post about politics until after Thanksgiving and probably into December. I need a break from it. My soul hurts for those I've listed above, and I'm having a hard time coming to terms with it. Some of those fears may end up being unjustified. Maybe President Trump won't do the things he's said. Maybe he'll say "never mind" on some of his harshest rhetoric (Already, Giuliani and Christie have seemed to wave off the idea of locking up Hillary Clinton as just talk, when that was something they personally stoked and chanted at rallies and the RNC). But maybe, as his followers suggest, "he means what he says."
Either way, I need to get away from politics and find something else to distract me. Plus, this site wasn't just about politics anyway. It turned that way because the election is something I knew, but I want this site to be about tackling specific issues in different ways, researching my conclusions, telling about how journalism works, and doing silly things (Ranking the Scooby Doo series/characters is coming). The posts will be far smaller going forward, so thanks for dealing with the length during the election season.
Summary Judgments
CNN kept doing a "Key State Alert" to update the election on Tuesday. They didn't need a sounder every time they checked a state, and it was really kind of dumb when it's about a state we knew would go one way or another: They did the Key State Alert for Indiana, for example — that's a Trump state and everyone knew it. That's not a Key State, that's just a state. • • • I still think the Electoral College has a purpose. But it's been pointed out that the only four times that it chose someone other than the popular vote winner, it's chosen a Republican every time. There might be more calls to change the EC if both sides had suffered the same loss. • • • There's an old adage, I don't know where it came from. Demolition costs 10 times less than Construction, because it's way easier to tear things down than to build something back up. Let's see what the GOP will build when they're done tearing down. • • • This is the first election since the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to overturn certain portions of the Voting Rights Act. Their reasoning, per Chief Justice Roberts, was that times had changed and America no longer needed those voting protections. Perhaps this decision had an effect in a few key states, like North Carolina. For instance, its lawmakers eliminated Sunday early voting after seeking out research that proved it was "disproportionately black" and "disproportionately Democratic." Wisconsin had 300,000 possible voters who did not have an ID (those without an ID tend to be minorities, and those at either end of the age spectrum) and therefore could not vote. The margin of victory for Trump in that state was under 30,000. The same is true in Michigan on a larger scale: More voters without a photo ID, but a margin of victory for Trump under 20,000. • • • I was nervous on the day of the election, and Roland helped make it a little better. First, he decided he should have my I Voted sticker and put it on him instead. Second, when Alyson asked who he voted for, he said "My Daddy." That warmed my heart. • • • This weekend, we start really potty training Evie. We think she'll take to it easily, but yet I have no idea what to expect.
What Happened
Let's go back to the idea of the "firewall" states for Hillary Clinton. They added up to 273 electoral college votes. Her firewall included Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Those were considered safe states because they'd voted Democrat almost my entire life — Michigan since 1992 and the other two since 1988. And when those were close and going more and more red around 8:30 p.m., it was the end. With North Carolina and Florida pretty much sealed off to her by then, she became reliant on the firewall, and the firewall couldn't hold.
So were the polls off?
Yes, but not as much as you think. Nate Silver, the famed analyst/number cruncher, is one of my favorite reads. He gave Trump about a 1 in 3 chance of winning (29 percent in his final data set). While that sounds bad, consider that most other political number pundits (numbits?) had Trump at only a 5-10 percent chance. So he was more right than the others. Anyway, he noted that the aggregation of the polls showed a 3-4 percent Clinton lead in the popular vote. She'll end up winning the popular vote by 1-2 percent. That's a fairly typical polling error either way. Marist College, one of the better pollsters out there, showed a 1 percent lead for Clinton in their final poll — they were right! On the other hand, the LA Times/USC poll seemed to show positive results for Trump throughout. They were the outlier, and many dismissed them. The LA Times seemed to brag yesterday about how justified they'd been all along. But they were even more wrong. Their final analysis was that Trump had a 3 point lead nationally. If Clinton won the popular vote by 1-2 percent, that means the LA Times poll was 4-5 percent off! Although it showed a greater Trump lead, it also was farther off than more traditional pollsters.
But prognosticators were wrong, so what gives?
Nate Silver's model says that the states are not independent of each other. For example, if North Dakota votes one way, South Dakota is probably going to follow to some extent. That was the case in the Upper Midwest. While we can't say which was the first domino, if Michigan flips, that meant Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were more likely to flip. Maybe it was Ohio that flipped first. And in swing states like North Carolina and Florida, both of which Trump won narrowly, polls showed Clinton with a lead.
There's some evidence that Trump voters did not like to tell their votes to other people. Trump did better in automated call polls than in live call polls. So there's some evidence that they were shy about broadcasting their vote. The LA Times/USC pollers found that was particularly true for women voters. And when we look at the best data available from the election, we also see stark demographic splits:
Clinton won women by 12 points. Trump won men by 12 points. Clinton won those under 45. Trump won those over 45. Trump won both white men (by 32) and white women (by 10). Clinton won every minority group by at least 29 points. Clinton won college graduates. Trump won those who didn't graduate college (though he won white college graduates, but not white college graduate women). Trump won those who make over $50,000. Clinton won those who make under $50,000. Even on the issue 52 percent of Americans found most important — the economy — Clinton won. But when asked their reason for voting, the biggest reason — change — went heavily to Trump. These are not small divides. These are big differences. It tells me that we are as divided as ever.
The most succinct answer I saw about what changed was from a source that I now can't find. But what they tweeted was that white non-college educated people, who represent somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of the electorate, decided they were a minority and were going to vote like one. That would explain the shift in the Upper Midwest, where economic recovery has been slower than the rest of the country.
One final reminder for those celebrating this win on the right: A swing of 1 voter in 100 would have given Clinton a win not only in North Carolina, but also in the Upper Midwest. While she was horribly unpopular now, the Democrats won't be running a Clinton next election cycle. Also, more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. That cannot be forgotten or ignored — this was not a mandate from the people.
What Happens Now
Before I go on, I should mention the Senate stayed Republican, 52-48. What happened? Quite simply, red states voted for GOP senators and blue states voted for Democrat senators. The states in which Democrats either won seats or held on (Nevada, New Hampshire, Illinois) all went to Clinton. The states in which Trump won meant that the close Senate races there went GOP, too (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, North Carolina).
So this means the country will have a Republican President, a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and you can bet your bottom dollar that it'll have a Republican Supreme Court in about four months. There is talk that Rudy Giuliani could be the Attorney General. Chris Christie, whose top aides were just convicted in Bridgegate, could have a Cabinet post. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, the most unpopular governor in the country, is being considered for Agriculture Secretary. Newt Gingrich could be Secretary of State. If you're noticing a theme, there is one: formerly disgraced, staunchly conservative white men. And don't expect this to change in 2018: the Senate map is terrible for Democrats, as I predicted months ago. So let me put this in italics: The GOP can do whatever they want for the next four years. Months ago, we were talking about the House or Senate being a check on Clinton. Now, there is no check on President Trump.
Why Those on the Left Are Taking This Personally
If the right lost, it was just a political loss for them — it didn't affect their personal identity if Obamacare remained or the country continued Obama-era policies. It just meant things weren't going the way they liked.
But for the left, this loss is not just political, their personal identities are possibly under attack based on Trump's stated positions:
• LGBT people are concerned that with a conservative Supreme Court and Republicans completely in power, they will no longer be protected by the law. They're worried that their rights to marry the person they want are in jeopardy. They're frightened that their rights could go backwards, even. They're almost certain that in states like Kansas or Oklahoma, there will be no way to prevent them from being fired or kicked out of their home simply for being gay (currently legal, by the way).
• Black people are worried that Trump will carry through on his campaign promises of brutal and unconstitutional police tactics. They're scared of stop-and-frisk — ruled unconstitutional because it targeted minorities, but touted by Trump anyway. They're worried that our president-elect has continued to declare minority men like the Central Park Five guilty and deserving of jail time, even though DNA evidence has cleared them and a sixth man admitted to the crime. They're worried because he believes inner cities are third world countries. They're worried that the candidate endorsed by the KKK and championed by white supremacists has now gained unchecked power.
• Latinos are scared to death. They're worried that undocumented immigrants, perhaps their father or brother or even them, could be rounded up and shipped to Mexico. They're afraid of a wall that seems to demonize Mexican immigrants. They are afraid of a man whose campaign began with the idea that Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers, but he assumed (!) that some — not many — were good people. The mass deportation, once ruled unconstitutional when done in California in decades past, could separate families. They feel under attack.
• Journalists are worried. I know I am, and I'm no longer a journalist, really. Trump has attacked those in the media and stoked the fire of his supporters at the media. One supporter at a recent Trump rally wore a shirt that said "Tree. Rope. Journalist. Some Assembly Required." THAT SCARES ME PERSONALLY. He's advocated loosening the libel laws so that he can use his large pocketbooks to attack journalists. He's attacked Megyn Kelly, a right-leaning Fox News host of all people, for daring to question him about his views on women.
• Muslim-Americans are worried for their lives and livelihoods. Hassan Minaj on The Daily Show gave an incredibly heartfelt speech about how his mother, who immigrated to America years ago, is out of the country right now, but is frantically asking if she'll be allowed to come back in February. I have Muslim friends that are worried about harassment and the emboldening of Islamophobes.
• There are a large number of women I know who are depressed. For instance, I have a friend who was raped and tortured (the man was convicted). Trump bragged about sexual assault on those tapes but denied it ever happened, then nearly a dozen women came forth to say it had happened. Yet America has said that doesn't matter — put him in the highest office. She's afraid that this will only embolden horrible actions by men, because if Trump can do it and face no consequences, then anyone can.
• That brings me to my final group of people afraid. Well, not afraid, but perhaps concerned. I know many parents, albeit left-leaning, who have paid attention this election cycle. And what this election has done is say that there are no off-limits anymore. You can be as caustic, as vile, as rude, as mean, as interrupting as you want to whomever you want. And that's no longer a disqualifier for our highest office. This is a threat to those who feel that morality is important in our leaders.
UPDATE: • I forgot one group. I have friends, including two close ones, who are reliant on Obamacare provisions. Before Obamacare kicked in, pre-existing conditions prevented them from getting health insurance. Without health insurance, they could not have gotten the surgeries and treatment they needed to survive. Without the provisions of Obamacare, these two friends would be either dead in one case or not able to work in the other. Obamacare has literally saved their lives. And they are scared to death that the promises made to repeal Obamacare will put their future in jeopardy.
Again, this will be my last post about politics until after Thanksgiving and probably into December. I need a break from it. My soul hurts for those I've listed above, and I'm having a hard time coming to terms with it. Some of those fears may end up being unjustified. Maybe President Trump won't do the things he's said. Maybe he'll say "never mind" on some of his harshest rhetoric (Already, Giuliani and Christie have seemed to wave off the idea of locking up Hillary Clinton as just talk, when that was something they personally stoked and chanted at rallies and the RNC). But maybe, as his followers suggest, "he means what he says."
Either way, I need to get away from politics and find something else to distract me. Plus, this site wasn't just about politics anyway. It turned that way because the election is something I knew, but I want this site to be about tackling specific issues in different ways, researching my conclusions, telling about how journalism works, and doing silly things (Ranking the Scooby Doo series/characters is coming). The posts will be far smaller going forward, so thanks for dealing with the length during the election season.
Summary Judgments
CNN kept doing a "Key State Alert" to update the election on Tuesday. They didn't need a sounder every time they checked a state, and it was really kind of dumb when it's about a state we knew would go one way or another: They did the Key State Alert for Indiana, for example — that's a Trump state and everyone knew it. That's not a Key State, that's just a state. • • • I still think the Electoral College has a purpose. But it's been pointed out that the only four times that it chose someone other than the popular vote winner, it's chosen a Republican every time. There might be more calls to change the EC if both sides had suffered the same loss. • • • There's an old adage, I don't know where it came from. Demolition costs 10 times less than Construction, because it's way easier to tear things down than to build something back up. Let's see what the GOP will build when they're done tearing down. • • • This is the first election since the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to overturn certain portions of the Voting Rights Act. Their reasoning, per Chief Justice Roberts, was that times had changed and America no longer needed those voting protections. Perhaps this decision had an effect in a few key states, like North Carolina. For instance, its lawmakers eliminated Sunday early voting after seeking out research that proved it was "disproportionately black" and "disproportionately Democratic." Wisconsin had 300,000 possible voters who did not have an ID (those without an ID tend to be minorities, and those at either end of the age spectrum) and therefore could not vote. The margin of victory for Trump in that state was under 30,000. The same is true in Michigan on a larger scale: More voters without a photo ID, but a margin of victory for Trump under 20,000. • • • I was nervous on the day of the election, and Roland helped make it a little better. First, he decided he should have my I Voted sticker and put it on him instead. Second, when Alyson asked who he voted for, he said "My Daddy." That warmed my heart. • • • This weekend, we start really potty training Evie. We think she'll take to it easily, but yet I have no idea what to expect.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Last Call
I'm writing this with just a couple dozen hours before this whole election thing will be over (I hope.). I believe tomorrow will go peacefully. I believe the election will be calmly accepted by both parties. I believe that the outcome will cause change, and that both parties perform a serious introspection.
Where do we stand?
Hillary Clinton probably has the advantage, but it's not a lock. What political observers have long called her "firewall" is mostly holding. "Firewall" states include Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Hampshire. If she wins all those, it won't matter if she loses Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, Florida, Arizona or Iowa. She could lose all of them, but if she holds onto those in the first sentence, she's still your president.
But you might have noticed the hedge there — mostly. New Hampshire has been tight in the polls, with some leads for Donald Trump mixed in. Michigan and Colorado are now in the lower single digits. Virginia's firmly blue, and I'd be shocked if Pennsylvania flipped, but that's why we vote — shocks sometimes happen.
On the flip side, I think there is evidence that Clinton is doing better in Nevada and will probably win there (Most of that state votes early, and about 2/3 of the expected votes are already in for the state -- party registrations show a Democrat advantage). That could counter a loss in New Hampshire, or a win in North Carolina/Florida could counter a surprise Clinton loss in Michigan/Pennsylvania.
What states are most important?
I think there are five, in order:
1) Florida — If Clinton wins here, she's probably winning in Nevada and New Hampshire, too, and has a good shot at North Carolina. Which means Trump's pathway to the presidency is almost completely blocked. Polls have a slight Clinton lead, and I think it's leaning blue right now, but it's pretty much considered a coin flip by several reputable sources.
2) Pennsylvania -- If it goes to Trump, he's probably winning more than we expect. A Trump win would signal that polls were missing many of his voters. Trump has only led in one poll here in the last month, and I don't think it's particularly close to being a red state, but it's possible.
3) North Carolina -- This is Florida in miniature for both candidates. Florida has 29 electoral votes, and North Carolina has 15. Plan A for Clinton is to win her firewall states. Plan B would be to swap out Michigan or Wisconsin for North Carolina.
4) Nevada -- Plan A for Clinton is to win her firewall states. New Hampshire's probably the most worrisome for her, but it only has 4 electoral votes. If she trades New Hampshire's 4 for Nevada's 6 electoral votes, that's a trade she's willing to make.
5) New Hampshire -- Of the firewall states, this is the most easy to pick off for Trump. It's a Northeast state, which tends to like Trump more than others. It's a state that tends to pick the national winner, and it's more libertarian than other states around it. Also, it could block off the easy road for Clinton.
How could Hillary Clinton win?
Plan A: Win her firewall. If she wins that, she's President.
Plan B: Win North Carolina or Florida as insurance against a surprise loss (or two, in Florida's case) somewhere else.
Plan C: If you can't win North Carolina or Florida and one of her big firewall states (Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania) has been breached, then win Ohio and either Nevada or New Hampshire. It's just barely enough — but a win's a win.
How could Donald Trump win?
Step one: Win Florida, or he's toast.
Step two: Win Ohio and Iowa. If he's struggling with these, he's losing in a landslide.
Step three: Here's where it gets tricky. He needs to win an Upper Midwest state like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan (both would do it, too), then win North Carolina and one other electoral vote (Maine's second district would do nicely). OR he could win Pennsylvania and Nevada while losing Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina. OR break through with a win in the firewall state of Colorado and win Nevada (or the firewall state of New Hampshire).
What should we watch for tomorrow?
The first results from New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida will tell us how the day will go. If Clinton's struggling in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, she's in for a long day. On the other hand, if she wins those two by 5-7 points, while North Carolina and Florida are close, she's probably going to win.
Also, watch the Senate races. Even the best prognosticators think it's roughly a coin flip to see if the Senate flips or not. It might all come down to the New Hampshire, Indiana or North Carolina Senate races.
Anything weird we should look out for?
I find three plausible, strange possibilities in the Electoral College and one outside the election.
1) If Clinton wins New Hampshire, Nevada and all the votes in Maine, but Trump wins Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa and Wisconsin, it's a 269-269 tie.
2) If Clinton wins all the votes in Maine, but Trump wins New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida, it's a 269-269 tie.
3) If Clinton wins New Hampshire and Nevada, but Trump wins one electoral vote in Maine and wins Colorado, it's a 269-269 tie.
Those scenarios would create fascinating political theater: Each state gets one vote in the incoming House of Representatives for President, and the incoming Senate does the same for Vice President. In this scenario, it's likely/possible that we'd have a Trump as president and Tim Kaine as vice president. Maybe. Who knows. It'd be wild.
The only other thing that could be weird/upsetting/strange is foreign interference in the election: Russia tampers with voting results or the power grid goes down... this type of thing would be a disaster on a national scale. I don't think this is all that likely, but it's a possibility to consider.
FBI stands for Fairly Brief Investigation
There wasn't much to FBI Director James Comey's first letter, which was effectively "We're looking at possible new evidence." But the media reported on it as if it were a scandal. It wasn't then and it turns out it wasn't now. It's reported that the emails were all either duplicates or personal emails. In effect, it's "nothing to see here."
But what it did was probably galvanize some on the right that they have to fight "Crooked Hillary." Perhaps that will have an effect at the polls. But I also think there were a percentage of people in the middle, unsure of what to decide. Maybe Comey's clearance of criminal activity makes them more likely to vote for Clinton. Honestly, I think that it's a wash. I doubt it changed anyone's mind one way or another, but perhaps made people more likely to vote. And more people participating in democracy is not a terrible thing. I'd rather the FBI stayed out of it altogether, however — Comey's original letter came at a critical time for both candidates.
Final predictions
Clinton's firewall holds. She also wins Nevada and Florida, while North Carolina comes down to the wire. I'll be bold and say she loses in North Carolina (My gut is she wins one of North Carolina or Florida, but I don't know which). Trump steals a vote in Maine's second district, but Clinton wins the electoral vote 307-231.
In the Senate, I think Feingold holds on in Wisconsin and Duckworth coasts in Illinois. I think Cortez Masto squeaks by in Nevada, while McGinty pulls off the victory in Pennsylvania. I think the Democrats pull off one more win in New Hampshire, but fall in North Carolina, Missouri and, surprisingly, Indiana. That means a 50-50 tie, with Tim Kaine giving Democrats the majority as vice president.
Summary Judgments
Just go vote. Do it for the fate and trajectory of our country.
Where do we stand?
Hillary Clinton probably has the advantage, but it's not a lock. What political observers have long called her "firewall" is mostly holding. "Firewall" states include Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Hampshire. If she wins all those, it won't matter if she loses Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, Florida, Arizona or Iowa. She could lose all of them, but if she holds onto those in the first sentence, she's still your president.
But you might have noticed the hedge there — mostly. New Hampshire has been tight in the polls, with some leads for Donald Trump mixed in. Michigan and Colorado are now in the lower single digits. Virginia's firmly blue, and I'd be shocked if Pennsylvania flipped, but that's why we vote — shocks sometimes happen.
On the flip side, I think there is evidence that Clinton is doing better in Nevada and will probably win there (Most of that state votes early, and about 2/3 of the expected votes are already in for the state -- party registrations show a Democrat advantage). That could counter a loss in New Hampshire, or a win in North Carolina/Florida could counter a surprise Clinton loss in Michigan/Pennsylvania.
What states are most important?
I think there are five, in order:
1) Florida — If Clinton wins here, she's probably winning in Nevada and New Hampshire, too, and has a good shot at North Carolina. Which means Trump's pathway to the presidency is almost completely blocked. Polls have a slight Clinton lead, and I think it's leaning blue right now, but it's pretty much considered a coin flip by several reputable sources.
2) Pennsylvania -- If it goes to Trump, he's probably winning more than we expect. A Trump win would signal that polls were missing many of his voters. Trump has only led in one poll here in the last month, and I don't think it's particularly close to being a red state, but it's possible.
3) North Carolina -- This is Florida in miniature for both candidates. Florida has 29 electoral votes, and North Carolina has 15. Plan A for Clinton is to win her firewall states. Plan B would be to swap out Michigan or Wisconsin for North Carolina.
4) Nevada -- Plan A for Clinton is to win her firewall states. New Hampshire's probably the most worrisome for her, but it only has 4 electoral votes. If she trades New Hampshire's 4 for Nevada's 6 electoral votes, that's a trade she's willing to make.
5) New Hampshire -- Of the firewall states, this is the most easy to pick off for Trump. It's a Northeast state, which tends to like Trump more than others. It's a state that tends to pick the national winner, and it's more libertarian than other states around it. Also, it could block off the easy road for Clinton.
How could Hillary Clinton win?
Plan A: Win her firewall. If she wins that, she's President.
Plan B: Win North Carolina or Florida as insurance against a surprise loss (or two, in Florida's case) somewhere else.
Plan C: If you can't win North Carolina or Florida and one of her big firewall states (Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania) has been breached, then win Ohio and either Nevada or New Hampshire. It's just barely enough — but a win's a win.
How could Donald Trump win?
Step one: Win Florida, or he's toast.
Step two: Win Ohio and Iowa. If he's struggling with these, he's losing in a landslide.
Step three: Here's where it gets tricky. He needs to win an Upper Midwest state like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan (both would do it, too), then win North Carolina and one other electoral vote (Maine's second district would do nicely). OR he could win Pennsylvania and Nevada while losing Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina. OR break through with a win in the firewall state of Colorado and win Nevada (or the firewall state of New Hampshire).
What should we watch for tomorrow?
The first results from New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida will tell us how the day will go. If Clinton's struggling in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, she's in for a long day. On the other hand, if she wins those two by 5-7 points, while North Carolina and Florida are close, she's probably going to win.
Also, watch the Senate races. Even the best prognosticators think it's roughly a coin flip to see if the Senate flips or not. It might all come down to the New Hampshire, Indiana or North Carolina Senate races.
Anything weird we should look out for?
I find three plausible, strange possibilities in the Electoral College and one outside the election.
1) If Clinton wins New Hampshire, Nevada and all the votes in Maine, but Trump wins Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa and Wisconsin, it's a 269-269 tie.
2) If Clinton wins all the votes in Maine, but Trump wins New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida, it's a 269-269 tie.
3) If Clinton wins New Hampshire and Nevada, but Trump wins one electoral vote in Maine and wins Colorado, it's a 269-269 tie.
Those scenarios would create fascinating political theater: Each state gets one vote in the incoming House of Representatives for President, and the incoming Senate does the same for Vice President. In this scenario, it's likely/possible that we'd have a Trump as president and Tim Kaine as vice president. Maybe. Who knows. It'd be wild.
The only other thing that could be weird/upsetting/strange is foreign interference in the election: Russia tampers with voting results or the power grid goes down... this type of thing would be a disaster on a national scale. I don't think this is all that likely, but it's a possibility to consider.
FBI stands for Fairly Brief Investigation
There wasn't much to FBI Director James Comey's first letter, which was effectively "We're looking at possible new evidence." But the media reported on it as if it were a scandal. It wasn't then and it turns out it wasn't now. It's reported that the emails were all either duplicates or personal emails. In effect, it's "nothing to see here."
But what it did was probably galvanize some on the right that they have to fight "Crooked Hillary." Perhaps that will have an effect at the polls. But I also think there were a percentage of people in the middle, unsure of what to decide. Maybe Comey's clearance of criminal activity makes them more likely to vote for Clinton. Honestly, I think that it's a wash. I doubt it changed anyone's mind one way or another, but perhaps made people more likely to vote. And more people participating in democracy is not a terrible thing. I'd rather the FBI stayed out of it altogether, however — Comey's original letter came at a critical time for both candidates.
Final predictions
Clinton's firewall holds. She also wins Nevada and Florida, while North Carolina comes down to the wire. I'll be bold and say she loses in North Carolina (My gut is she wins one of North Carolina or Florida, but I don't know which). Trump steals a vote in Maine's second district, but Clinton wins the electoral vote 307-231.
In the Senate, I think Feingold holds on in Wisconsin and Duckworth coasts in Illinois. I think Cortez Masto squeaks by in Nevada, while McGinty pulls off the victory in Pennsylvania. I think the Democrats pull off one more win in New Hampshire, but fall in North Carolina, Missouri and, surprisingly, Indiana. That means a 50-50 tie, with Tim Kaine giving Democrats the majority as vice president.
Summary Judgments
Just go vote. Do it for the fate and trajectory of our country.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
The End Is Near
This is the last planned blog post before the election. I will probably have another post on Monday, depending on last-minute election news.
These are the only two candidates that the other could possibly beat. In talking with my Mom about this election, we noted that this election is something of a crossroads for the country:
• We want someone who knows what they are doing, but we don't want a politician.
• We want to be a diverse country, but we're afraid of what that means if it actually happens.
• We want to be part of a global market, but we are worried about what effects that could have on our country.
• We want to be safer both domestically and internationally, but want to preserve our Constitutional rights.
• We want leaders of integrity, but we have two candidates who do not appear to meet our standards.
Below, I'll talk about the FBI/Comey's letter and Wikileaks news, then explain who I'm voting for. This isn't an endorsement, it's not trying to convince anyone, it's merely an explanation of my vote. I'm sure you'll disagree. That's fine. But if you have read this blog for some time, then you probably value my opinion enough to hear out the how's and why's.
An October Surprise That Actually Matters
As for the newest FBI revelations, everyone has made mistakes. In shortest possible terms, the FBI was investigating Anthony Weiner's computer because he's allegedly a terrible person and found some stuff that raised red flags related to the Clinton email issue. What we don't know is a) If there is anything new b) How much is different c) If it affects Hillary Clinton and not just Huma Abedin, the now-separated wife of Anthony Weiner. On one extreme, maybe there's nothing here. On the other extreme, the worst I see happening from what we know now is Clinton separating from her closest advisor in Huma Abedin.
But everyone has made errors here. Let's review:
FBI Director James Comey was perhaps in the hardest spot. Let's assume the best, and that there are no political motivations. As we understand it, the FBI's investigation of Anthony Weiner found potential Clinton-related emails on a computer. Comey was in a no-win situation. If he told Congress of possible new evidence immediately, it would look like he was trying to influence the election and thus violate the Hatch Act (officials can't directly use their power to try to influence elections). If he waited until after the election, he'd be accused of trying to protect Clinton. So he was in a sticky wicket. But it's reported that the FBI's had this material for weeks. Which means that even if transparency were his goal, then he should have divulged it immediately instead of 11 days before the election.
Democrats and Republicans, in general, are both wrong for being easy-to-identify hypocrites. Democrats who praised both Comey and the FBI in July are now on the attack, with some calling for Comey's resignation. The opposite is true of the GOP, who had called the FBI corrupt since July and is now singing its praises while mischaracterizing Comey's letter.
Donald Trump, who has been calling the system rigged for countless months, said that it might not be as rigged as he thought now that the FBI is looking at this. This implies that the only way to prove a government agency's non-corruptness is by doing what he wants. That's worrisome.
Hillary Clinton. I could talk about how how this whole email mess is wrong but not illegal, or how this most recent news isn't as bad for her legally as first appears. But Paul Ryan is right when he said Clinton brought this on herself. Although she's apologized at every debate for the email system, she also got herself into this mess by using a private server. While there are arguments to be made about how or why it happened, it's nonetheless something that doesn't pass the smell test for many Americans. She made this bed, and she's going to have to lie in it. Ugh... bad choice of words.
Question of Leadership
I hate arguments that the election is rigged. They're usually whining about losing, they tend to overlook context, tend to not understand the hows and whens of what's happening. They ignore that voters make their own decisions. But when clear injections of personal bias get in the way, I am a staunch advocate of harsh consequences.
Let's talk about the last two Democratic National Committee chairwomen. Debbie Wasserman-Schulz was a drag to that party's future, but Wikileaks seemed to show her with a bias toward Clinton and away from Bernie Sanders. However, in context, her leaked comments do not appear as bad as first thought. Her leaked comments calling Sanders a liar and such were about 3/4 through the primary season, when the primary was all but over. Sanders was in the middle of calling the DNC rigged against her. Her comments were in reaction to that — a natural reaction to being called corrupt on a national stage. I did not see any comments that were from before May, and you can look at my past blog entries to see that the race was already concluded except for the formalities. In context, it's not as bad as first blush.
What I have no patience for is Donna Brazile, the current DNC chairwoman who took over from Wasserman-Schulz. She resigned from CNN earlier this month, but it was quiet. That's because Wikileaks revealed that she leaked questions in the Democratic primary debate to the Clinton camp. This is blatant favoritism, blatant interference in a major event, and simply unnecessary. Yes, the party can decide whom they want — there's no rule that they have to be independent. But that's the expectation. That's why we vote in primaries and care about who runs. She was a faithless referee. I believe she should resign from the DNC, and that the DNC should find someone with some integrity.
My Reasoning for My Vote
I started this election campaign without a dog in the fight. I have voted for Republicans and Democrats for President in the past. I was not impressed by any candidate before the election season and was hoping to be convinced. I came in open minded.
On the one hand, there was Hillary Clinton. I was not impressed by her run against Barack Obama in 2008. I've heard and told jokes over the years about her ambition for the White House for years (the more I think about this, I'm not sure it's not sexism in disguise –- no one accused any of the GOP candidates of having too much ambition). However, I thought she did a fine job as senator and performed admirably as secretary of state.
Donald Trump has seemingly always been a public figure. He was in Home Alone 2, he's been a beauty pageant owner, he's been in WWE, he's been in feuds with Rosie O'Donnell, he's been the face of the birther movement, he's been a star of the tabloids, he's made a name out of making a name for himself. His name is on many large buildings across the nation's largest cities. He is narcissistic excess writ large.
I watched every debate, with one exception, in both the primary and presidential levels. I saw Clinton battle with Bernie Sanders largely over policy. She was the better debater. People weren't as passionate for her as they were for Sanders, but she won the debates. I was impressed by that. Then, in October 2015, she went before the (eighth) Benghazi committee to testify for 11 hours about her email server. I watched much of it, because I was home with a sick kid. I was impressed by her calm demeanor, her answers to tough questions from GOP lawmakers, and her stamina. That was, perhaps, the best and first argument for her: She was at her best in the big moments.
At the same time, Trump was using insults to win the primary. He denied that John McCain was a war hero because he got captured. He accused Ted Cruz's dad of helping with the assassination of JFK. He described Mexicans crossing the border as rapists and bringing drugs (Some, he assumed, were good people.). He called to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. (He's softened that position to "extreme vetting," with no explanation of what that means.). He seemed to not understand who David Duke was or even deny the support of white supremacists for a time. He advocated war crimes. He advocated torture. He made reference to the size of his penis in a debate. He was sued for the fraudulent Trump University, which was not a university and was really just a scheme. He used his foundation to funnel money to a Florida AG who was looking into Trump University and has since been fined for it. He implied that Carly Fiorina was too ugly to be president. He implied that Heidi Cruz was ugly. He retweeted white supremacists and Benito Mussolini quotes. He attacked Megyn Kelly for having "blood coming out of her wherever" after she asked him about his sexist quotes about women.
That is all just from the PRIMARY battle. He wallowed like a pig in mud at any and every salacious rumor that existed, even when no evidence existed to support it. Perhaps this was a distraction from his policy positions, which didn't have much substance and fell apart at the slightest questioning. Take this video about the Mexican wall. Or this one about tax policy. Or this one about health care policy. He has courted evangelicals while seeming to misunderstand even the basics of Christianity, like asking for forgiveness. This is not even mentioning his failures as a businessman, with Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, Trump magazine, Trump World magazine, Trump Taj Mahal, GoTrump.com, Trump Steaks, Trump Wine, Trump Mortgage, the aforementioned Trump University, etc.
Since the primaries, he has continued his tour of anger and vitriol, attacking Miss America winners by imagining a sex tape, attacked Clinton for perceived illness and stamina issues, has been caught on tape seeming to describe sexual assault, used his foundation to pay off his lawsuit settlements, called for the return of an unconstitutional police technique, acknowledged during a presidential debate that he didn't pay taxes for years, used a now-illegal tax loophole to avoid millions in taxes, seemed unaware of Russia's invasion of Crimea two years ago, disagreed with his running mate about Syria while showing little knowledge of the situation, called an Indiana judge out for his "Mexican heritage", etc.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has had to deal with her emails for more than a year. She's had to deal with the fact that many Americans do not like her. She's had to deal with the baggage that comes from both Obama's and her husband's legacies. She's not as natural of a campaigner as those two on stage, either — a challenge for any candidate. In the big moments of the campaign — debates and conventions, Clinton has excelled. You can easily see this in the FiveThirtyEight information or any poll tracker: Clinton's poll numbers jumped after the big set pieces. She beat Trump in all three debates. She had a convention built not just on fear of her opponent, but also of what she'd build in comparison (something the RNC did not). While I do not agree with her on all the issues and find her slow to change/late to certain views, I believe she's a capable leader who is a bad campaigner. She made her own bed in regard to the emails and to a far, far lesser extent the Clinton Foundation, but compare those to the seemingly incomplete list of links to Trump problems above.
If this were a race between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, it would be a different consideration. I would be considering their policies more. However, that's not what we have. I am not one for hyperbole, so let me be clear when I say this: Donald Trump is an existential threat to America. Mitt Romney and John McCain and Barack Obama and John Kerry were not at all. Donald Trump has advocated loosening libel laws so he can sue journalists more easily. I've already mentioned that he advocates for war crimes and torture. He has implied that gun owners could "do something" if Clinton is elected. He has invited Russia to hack Clinton's emails. He has advocated for a religious test against Muslims before entering the country. He is the epitome of everything that foreign critics say is wrong about America (obsessed with money, caustic and uncaring about people). At the end of the day for me, Hillary Clinton is a politician, but ultimately just a politician. I don't think she's a threat to the country's future. Donald Trump is a person with little regard for the Constitution, basic decency, simple respect or even the truth. I am firmly in the Never Trump boat, but also I've been impressed by Hillary Clinton in the biggest moments. Please vote your own conscience on Tuesday.
Election Update
Presidential
Big changes this week. Clinton was trending down in the last week before the FBI email story. Now, she's going to have to sweat out a victory. I still think her "firewall" is safe: No poll shows Trump leading in Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania or Michigan. Michigan's a LOT closer than it used to be, though — but still no poll shows a Trump lead. Of her firewall states, there's been only two polls with a Trump lead in the last two weeks: both in 4-electoral vote New Hampshire. However, other polls of that state show a Clinton lead. Outside her firewall, I think she's still got the inside track on North Carolina. Winning that would allow her to lose either Wisconsin and New Hampshire OR Michigan, but not both. Reading the tea leaves of early voting, I think she's got a slight edge in Nevada, but I don't feel confident about it. If she won that, it would also give her a bit of breathing space in case New Hampshire flips red. I think the FBI scandal has cost Clinton Arizona. Only two recent polls show her with a lead, with the others going for Trump. Florida is really, really close. I've gone back and forth twice today about which side to put it on, but I think I'll leave it blue for now. Winning Florida is vital for both: Clinton needs it to potentially counter losses elsewhere or to run up the score, while Trump almost has to win it. Arizona moves red. States to watch: All of them -- it's the home stretch! Electoral college: Clinton 322, Trump 216, 270 to win.
Senate
Illinois is out of reach. Wisconsin's had some two polls showing a tight race, including one lead for the GOP incumbent. But every other poll shows a solid lead for the Democrat Feingold. Florida is the same case, with polls showing a tighter race than before, but I still think Rubio has the lead to keep his seat. Indiana is also much, much closer than it was and now it's not a lock for flipping like it had been. I'd still give it to Bayh, but it's now just as much a battleground as most of the states below. The most recent polls of Nevada have a slight tilt toward the Democrat, though they are quite back-and-forth. Six new polls of Missouri — finally! — and three show a small Blunt lead, two show a tie, and the other shows a small Kander lead. I still think Blunt takes it. Katie McGinty's starting to pull away from Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. I think New Hampshire is the closest race in the country, and I have no clue which way it will go. But I'm sticking with my prediction that Hassan will win. Finally, North Carolina, which I think is way closer than most give it credit for. However, the polls are also showing a lean toward the GOP incumbent Burr, and I'm sticking with my prediction he holds on. If you'd asked me a week ago how the Senate ended, I said confidently that it'd end up a 51-49 Democrat edge. Now, I am not unconfidently saying it's going to end up a 50-50 split with the presidential winner deciding the majority.
Summary Judgments
Nike had a nice "Goodbye Someday" commercial after the Cubs won the World Series. But I thought this Sportscenter ad was better. • • • With the Cubs winning, the next longest drought in Big 4 Sport history is... the NFL's Cardinals, who have moved towns a few times, but is now in Arizona. (In baseball, it's the now sad-sack Indians.) • • • I don't even like country music, but this was a lot of fun, with Beyonce and the Dixie Chicks. • • • My kids don't like it when I sing. I like to sing. "No Sing!" Evie says, grabbing my lips. "No Sing!" Roland says.
These are the only two candidates that the other could possibly beat. In talking with my Mom about this election, we noted that this election is something of a crossroads for the country:
• We want someone who knows what they are doing, but we don't want a politician.
• We want to be a diverse country, but we're afraid of what that means if it actually happens.
• We want to be part of a global market, but we are worried about what effects that could have on our country.
• We want to be safer both domestically and internationally, but want to preserve our Constitutional rights.
• We want leaders of integrity, but we have two candidates who do not appear to meet our standards.
Below, I'll talk about the FBI/Comey's letter and Wikileaks news, then explain who I'm voting for. This isn't an endorsement, it's not trying to convince anyone, it's merely an explanation of my vote. I'm sure you'll disagree. That's fine. But if you have read this blog for some time, then you probably value my opinion enough to hear out the how's and why's.
An October Surprise That Actually Matters
As for the newest FBI revelations, everyone has made mistakes. In shortest possible terms, the FBI was investigating Anthony Weiner's computer because he's allegedly a terrible person and found some stuff that raised red flags related to the Clinton email issue. What we don't know is a) If there is anything new b) How much is different c) If it affects Hillary Clinton and not just Huma Abedin, the now-separated wife of Anthony Weiner. On one extreme, maybe there's nothing here. On the other extreme, the worst I see happening from what we know now is Clinton separating from her closest advisor in Huma Abedin.
But everyone has made errors here. Let's review:
FBI Director James Comey was perhaps in the hardest spot. Let's assume the best, and that there are no political motivations. As we understand it, the FBI's investigation of Anthony Weiner found potential Clinton-related emails on a computer. Comey was in a no-win situation. If he told Congress of possible new evidence immediately, it would look like he was trying to influence the election and thus violate the Hatch Act (officials can't directly use their power to try to influence elections). If he waited until after the election, he'd be accused of trying to protect Clinton. So he was in a sticky wicket. But it's reported that the FBI's had this material for weeks. Which means that even if transparency were his goal, then he should have divulged it immediately instead of 11 days before the election.
Democrats and Republicans, in general, are both wrong for being easy-to-identify hypocrites. Democrats who praised both Comey and the FBI in July are now on the attack, with some calling for Comey's resignation. The opposite is true of the GOP, who had called the FBI corrupt since July and is now singing its praises while mischaracterizing Comey's letter.
Donald Trump, who has been calling the system rigged for countless months, said that it might not be as rigged as he thought now that the FBI is looking at this. This implies that the only way to prove a government agency's non-corruptness is by doing what he wants. That's worrisome.
Hillary Clinton. I could talk about how how this whole email mess is wrong but not illegal, or how this most recent news isn't as bad for her legally as first appears. But Paul Ryan is right when he said Clinton brought this on herself. Although she's apologized at every debate for the email system, she also got herself into this mess by using a private server. While there are arguments to be made about how or why it happened, it's nonetheless something that doesn't pass the smell test for many Americans. She made this bed, and she's going to have to lie in it. Ugh... bad choice of words.
Question of Leadership
I hate arguments that the election is rigged. They're usually whining about losing, they tend to overlook context, tend to not understand the hows and whens of what's happening. They ignore that voters make their own decisions. But when clear injections of personal bias get in the way, I am a staunch advocate of harsh consequences.
Let's talk about the last two Democratic National Committee chairwomen. Debbie Wasserman-Schulz was a drag to that party's future, but Wikileaks seemed to show her with a bias toward Clinton and away from Bernie Sanders. However, in context, her leaked comments do not appear as bad as first thought. Her leaked comments calling Sanders a liar and such were about 3/4 through the primary season, when the primary was all but over. Sanders was in the middle of calling the DNC rigged against her. Her comments were in reaction to that — a natural reaction to being called corrupt on a national stage. I did not see any comments that were from before May, and you can look at my past blog entries to see that the race was already concluded except for the formalities. In context, it's not as bad as first blush.
What I have no patience for is Donna Brazile, the current DNC chairwoman who took over from Wasserman-Schulz. She resigned from CNN earlier this month, but it was quiet. That's because Wikileaks revealed that she leaked questions in the Democratic primary debate to the Clinton camp. This is blatant favoritism, blatant interference in a major event, and simply unnecessary. Yes, the party can decide whom they want — there's no rule that they have to be independent. But that's the expectation. That's why we vote in primaries and care about who runs. She was a faithless referee. I believe she should resign from the DNC, and that the DNC should find someone with some integrity.
My Reasoning for My Vote
I started this election campaign without a dog in the fight. I have voted for Republicans and Democrats for President in the past. I was not impressed by any candidate before the election season and was hoping to be convinced. I came in open minded.
On the one hand, there was Hillary Clinton. I was not impressed by her run against Barack Obama in 2008. I've heard and told jokes over the years about her ambition for the White House for years (the more I think about this, I'm not sure it's not sexism in disguise –- no one accused any of the GOP candidates of having too much ambition). However, I thought she did a fine job as senator and performed admirably as secretary of state.
Donald Trump has seemingly always been a public figure. He was in Home Alone 2, he's been a beauty pageant owner, he's been in WWE, he's been in feuds with Rosie O'Donnell, he's been the face of the birther movement, he's been a star of the tabloids, he's made a name out of making a name for himself. His name is on many large buildings across the nation's largest cities. He is narcissistic excess writ large.
I watched every debate, with one exception, in both the primary and presidential levels. I saw Clinton battle with Bernie Sanders largely over policy. She was the better debater. People weren't as passionate for her as they were for Sanders, but she won the debates. I was impressed by that. Then, in October 2015, she went before the (eighth) Benghazi committee to testify for 11 hours about her email server. I watched much of it, because I was home with a sick kid. I was impressed by her calm demeanor, her answers to tough questions from GOP lawmakers, and her stamina. That was, perhaps, the best and first argument for her: She was at her best in the big moments.
At the same time, Trump was using insults to win the primary. He denied that John McCain was a war hero because he got captured. He accused Ted Cruz's dad of helping with the assassination of JFK. He described Mexicans crossing the border as rapists and bringing drugs (Some, he assumed, were good people.). He called to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. (He's softened that position to "extreme vetting," with no explanation of what that means.). He seemed to not understand who David Duke was or even deny the support of white supremacists for a time. He advocated war crimes. He advocated torture. He made reference to the size of his penis in a debate. He was sued for the fraudulent Trump University, which was not a university and was really just a scheme. He used his foundation to funnel money to a Florida AG who was looking into Trump University and has since been fined for it. He implied that Carly Fiorina was too ugly to be president. He implied that Heidi Cruz was ugly. He retweeted white supremacists and Benito Mussolini quotes. He attacked Megyn Kelly for having "blood coming out of her wherever" after she asked him about his sexist quotes about women.
That is all just from the PRIMARY battle. He wallowed like a pig in mud at any and every salacious rumor that existed, even when no evidence existed to support it. Perhaps this was a distraction from his policy positions, which didn't have much substance and fell apart at the slightest questioning. Take this video about the Mexican wall. Or this one about tax policy. Or this one about health care policy. He has courted evangelicals while seeming to misunderstand even the basics of Christianity, like asking for forgiveness. This is not even mentioning his failures as a businessman, with Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, Trump magazine, Trump World magazine, Trump Taj Mahal, GoTrump.com, Trump Steaks, Trump Wine, Trump Mortgage, the aforementioned Trump University, etc.
Since the primaries, he has continued his tour of anger and vitriol, attacking Miss America winners by imagining a sex tape, attacked Clinton for perceived illness and stamina issues, has been caught on tape seeming to describe sexual assault, used his foundation to pay off his lawsuit settlements, called for the return of an unconstitutional police technique, acknowledged during a presidential debate that he didn't pay taxes for years, used a now-illegal tax loophole to avoid millions in taxes, seemed unaware of Russia's invasion of Crimea two years ago, disagreed with his running mate about Syria while showing little knowledge of the situation, called an Indiana judge out for his "Mexican heritage", etc.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has had to deal with her emails for more than a year. She's had to deal with the fact that many Americans do not like her. She's had to deal with the baggage that comes from both Obama's and her husband's legacies. She's not as natural of a campaigner as those two on stage, either — a challenge for any candidate. In the big moments of the campaign — debates and conventions, Clinton has excelled. You can easily see this in the FiveThirtyEight information or any poll tracker: Clinton's poll numbers jumped after the big set pieces. She beat Trump in all three debates. She had a convention built not just on fear of her opponent, but also of what she'd build in comparison (something the RNC did not). While I do not agree with her on all the issues and find her slow to change/late to certain views, I believe she's a capable leader who is a bad campaigner. She made her own bed in regard to the emails and to a far, far lesser extent the Clinton Foundation, but compare those to the seemingly incomplete list of links to Trump problems above.
If this were a race between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, it would be a different consideration. I would be considering their policies more. However, that's not what we have. I am not one for hyperbole, so let me be clear when I say this: Donald Trump is an existential threat to America. Mitt Romney and John McCain and Barack Obama and John Kerry were not at all. Donald Trump has advocated loosening libel laws so he can sue journalists more easily. I've already mentioned that he advocates for war crimes and torture. He has implied that gun owners could "do something" if Clinton is elected. He has invited Russia to hack Clinton's emails. He has advocated for a religious test against Muslims before entering the country. He is the epitome of everything that foreign critics say is wrong about America (obsessed with money, caustic and uncaring about people). At the end of the day for me, Hillary Clinton is a politician, but ultimately just a politician. I don't think she's a threat to the country's future. Donald Trump is a person with little regard for the Constitution, basic decency, simple respect or even the truth. I am firmly in the Never Trump boat, but also I've been impressed by Hillary Clinton in the biggest moments. Please vote your own conscience on Tuesday.
Election Update
Presidential
Big changes this week. Clinton was trending down in the last week before the FBI email story. Now, she's going to have to sweat out a victory. I still think her "firewall" is safe: No poll shows Trump leading in Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania or Michigan. Michigan's a LOT closer than it used to be, though — but still no poll shows a Trump lead. Of her firewall states, there's been only two polls with a Trump lead in the last two weeks: both in 4-electoral vote New Hampshire. However, other polls of that state show a Clinton lead. Outside her firewall, I think she's still got the inside track on North Carolina. Winning that would allow her to lose either Wisconsin and New Hampshire OR Michigan, but not both. Reading the tea leaves of early voting, I think she's got a slight edge in Nevada, but I don't feel confident about it. If she won that, it would also give her a bit of breathing space in case New Hampshire flips red. I think the FBI scandal has cost Clinton Arizona. Only two recent polls show her with a lead, with the others going for Trump. Florida is really, really close. I've gone back and forth twice today about which side to put it on, but I think I'll leave it blue for now. Winning Florida is vital for both: Clinton needs it to potentially counter losses elsewhere or to run up the score, while Trump almost has to win it. Arizona moves red. States to watch: All of them -- it's the home stretch! Electoral college: Clinton 322, Trump 216, 270 to win.
Senate
Illinois is out of reach. Wisconsin's had some two polls showing a tight race, including one lead for the GOP incumbent. But every other poll shows a solid lead for the Democrat Feingold. Florida is the same case, with polls showing a tighter race than before, but I still think Rubio has the lead to keep his seat. Indiana is also much, much closer than it was and now it's not a lock for flipping like it had been. I'd still give it to Bayh, but it's now just as much a battleground as most of the states below. The most recent polls of Nevada have a slight tilt toward the Democrat, though they are quite back-and-forth. Six new polls of Missouri — finally! — and three show a small Blunt lead, two show a tie, and the other shows a small Kander lead. I still think Blunt takes it. Katie McGinty's starting to pull away from Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. I think New Hampshire is the closest race in the country, and I have no clue which way it will go. But I'm sticking with my prediction that Hassan will win. Finally, North Carolina, which I think is way closer than most give it credit for. However, the polls are also showing a lean toward the GOP incumbent Burr, and I'm sticking with my prediction he holds on. If you'd asked me a week ago how the Senate ended, I said confidently that it'd end up a 51-49 Democrat edge. Now, I am not unconfidently saying it's going to end up a 50-50 split with the presidential winner deciding the majority.
Summary Judgments
Nike had a nice "Goodbye Someday" commercial after the Cubs won the World Series. But I thought this Sportscenter ad was better. • • • With the Cubs winning, the next longest drought in Big 4 Sport history is... the NFL's Cardinals, who have moved towns a few times, but is now in Arizona. (In baseball, it's the now sad-sack Indians.) • • • I don't even like country music, but this was a lot of fun, with Beyonce and the Dixie Chicks. • • • My kids don't like it when I sing. I like to sing. "No Sing!" Evie says, grabbing my lips. "No Sing!" Roland says.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Original Senate — Catching Up On the Tightest Races
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)