Translate

Monday, June 20, 2016

Little England/ LIttle America

The referendum vote in Britain this Thursday on whether to remain in the European Union seems to me like a smaller version of the challenge American voters will most likely face in November.  The ultimate question is whether the free exercise of badly-informed democratic opinion is pointing toward a negative response to Abraham Lincoln's resolution that  government "of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth".

The more short-term questions are whether Britain will do harm to itself by voting to isolate itself from its economic and political community, for reasons that range from dubious to fallacious to objectionable, and whether the US will do something similar this fall by electing Donald Trump.

The good news is that polling on the British question, which was trending toward a narrow vote to Leave the EU, has turned in the past few days.  The unfortunate aspect of that good news is that the incident that has apparently spurred the reversal in opinion was the killing of Labour MP Jo Cox, an advocate of remaining in Europe and an advocate for refugees.  The weird aspect of that story is that the nativist lunatic who committed the act was a follower of a US white supremacist group (the "National Alliance").  Which leads me to the following question:  If Donald Trump were British, would he be calling for the ban of all Americans?

The trend on the polling does follow the pattern of previous closely-contested referenda in modern days, such as the ones in Quebec on leaving Canada, or of Scotland's recent one on leaving Britain, in which a small wave of caution hits just before the final vote, preventing the leap into the unknown. So, it may not be entirely due to the Jo Cox murder, though that does seem to have shocked some into rethinking the matter.

Politically, the matter is fairly complex and has shown the ability to drive a wedge into both of Britain's major parties. Prime Minister David Cameron promised the vote in his last electoral campaign, in which his Conservative party won a narrow outright majority in Parliament.  It helped keep his party unified for that vote, but the referendum itself has now caused a major split:  many in the party have been steadfastly against Britain's participation in the Common Market/European Community/EU for decades, and this has been their opportunity to come out and say so publicly without being censured.  If Cameron loses, he will likely resign and control pass to his party's Euroskeptic faction, headed by former London Mayor Boris Johnson (the Conservatives could retain control, regardless, until 2020).

The Labour party, with its current left-wing leadership, has come out clearly against the referendum's passing, but I have little doubt that there will be a significant share of defections in the popular vote of normal party supporters.  The sentiment among much of the working class that EU has brought a major influx of low-paid foreigners, undercutting the domestic labor market, is one of the strongest pulls of popular opinion in favor of the Leave option.  The sentiment is not totally unfounded, but it is somewhat delusional to think that raising barriers to globalized labor competition will keep (or return) jobs for workers at home if the economics are against it.

The United Kingdom Independence Party, which has few members of Parliament but has popular support of over 10% in opinion polls, has been leading the fight for what is called "Brexit" (British exit), arguing on the basis of English nationalism and xenophobia about immigrants, especially non-Christian ones, and particularly Muslim refugees.  The movement in favor of Brexit really gained footing, though, when it gained some support from prominent Conservatives, and some in the financial community who saw advantage from it, though virtually all economists agree that withdrawal will have a negative effect, at least in the short term.

Why should those outside Britain care about the outcome?  As our visiting satirical interlocutor John Oliver humorously said to us about his British compadres,
As long as those crooked-toothed scum-goblins keep shooting out royal babies and Doctor Who episodes, who gives a tally-ho fuck what happens to them?
Well, first of all, it appears Wall Street really did care.   Worries about the vote drove the US stock market down last week, no more than a reflection of similar drops in European markets.  Brexit presents uncertainty, which the markets despise, but also probable drop in global trade and productivity.

Other likely downside outcomes include:  the probable withdrawal of Scotland, which wants to stay in the EU, from Britain; similar temptations for secessionist movements in other parts of the EU; the possibility of new border problems between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic; strengthening of nativist movements throughout Europe; and crisis in the weaker economies of the EU.  

I would not mourn the demise of the Cameron government; its sponsorship of the vote is fulfillment of a campaign promise which was pandering to a disloyal faction representing much of the worst of British politics. The folly and ambivalence of the Conservative government is epitomized by the vote being held during the Glastonbury music festival, during which hundreds of thousands of potential No votes will be disenfranchised, and by the number of members of Cameron's cabinet who brazenly oppose his government's policy.

The diametric opposite to Brexit, Britain participating in a more committed manner in the EU, is what I would advocate in the aftermath of the referendum failing.  Britain could make a real difference in the EU if it chose to take a leading role, instead of the classic British stance toward Europe, trying to control outcomes while remaining uncommitted. Interfering a bit, our President Obama openly urged that Britain take that positive, ambitious approach, and it's clear American interest remains with a strong, peaceful Europe, which Britain could help shape to its benefit and the general benefit of all.

American Parallels
Naturally, Donald Trump's shoot-from-the-hip answer to the question of Brexit was that they should do it..  His candidacy advocates many of the same political arguments as the Leave campaign: fear of foreigners, economic nationalism, worker insecurity, voodoo economics.  Britain and the US often follow similar contemporary political trends, and I will have increased fear for our domestic outcome if the British vote goes badly.  

Meanwhile, it goes badly for the Drumpfster.  His inane, insensitive comments after the Orlando mass murder have, for once, rebounded against him, even in his own party.  His campaign seems a shambles, lacking strategic direction and losing control of the news coverage. Here's a comment I mis-heard from Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press" this week when I was only half paying attention:  "Republican leaders are concerned about being downwind from Trump's shit".   Now, I'm sure he wouldn't say that:  maybe it was "shift"?   However, it sounds right to me.

Trump had to back down from his initial advocacy of a ban on gun purchase for people on the US' terror watch list:  he found himself outside the NRA's protective shell on that one, so he shifted.  The votes go on in the Senate, an exercise in futility.  I would hope that the Democrats find some proposal that they can support from the ones the Republicans make, perhaps the Susan Collins one to limit the ban to those on the smaller no-fly list, and to make it easier for those on that list to prove they should be taken off it, as long as the provision has some elements of which the NRA does not approve.  It would really be a shocker if something were actually to pass, not that it would get by the Republicans' unperturbed House majority.  It would, however, suggest the possibility of action, something which gun-control voters like me despair of ever seeing.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Rating the Appeal of Presidential Candidates

The other day a friend of mine commented in disgust that Hillary Clinton was the "second-least appealing POTUS candidate in my voting life".  (Implying Trump being the least, in his view.)   As he has often accused me of overstating, I decided I should take him to task on this one.

I know my friend's politics quite well.  His ideal candidate would merge the ideological purity of Bernie Sanders with Barack Obama's pragmatism; at the other extreme would be Ted Cruz.  Rather than his "voting life", while I can guess the date range of that, I will go for a larger sample, all of his life.  He's just coming up on his 60th birthday, so I will range from 1956 forward, but judging the candidates by the political standards of their times, not our current era's.   The other stipulation is that I will consider only the major party nominees.

Counting this year's presumptive nominees, there are 24 different major-party candidates in those 16 elections.   Richard Nixon is the only three-time candidate (two wins, one loss).  Six ran twice in the chosen time frame; there are no two-time losers (because Adlai Stevenson's first loss was before, in 1952), and there are only two among them who won once and lost once (Jimmy Carter and Poppy Bush).   The other 17 ran only once, and a whole bunch of them never got to demonstrate their policies' theoretical appeal while governing in the White House.   Here is my ranking of them on the policy dimension, from "most appealing" to least.
George McGovern (1972); Stevenson (1956); Dukakis (1980); Hubert Humphrey (1968); John Kerry (2004); Obama (2008-12); Al Gore (2000); Walter Mondale (1984); Jimmy Carter (1976-80); Lyndon Johnson (1964); John Kennedy (1960); WJ Clinton (1992-96); DD Eisenhower (1956); GHW Bush (1988-92); Nixon (1960, 1968-72), Gerald Ford (1976); Mitt Romney (2012); Bob Dole (1996); John McCain (2008); Barry Goldwater (2004); Ronald Reagan (1980-84); and George W. Bush (2000-04).  

Where to place the current ones on the policy appeal spectrum for my liberal friend?  I would put Hillary just after Eisenhower, and Donald Trump just above Goldwater.  There are some certainly some close calls in there, but I feel good about the ranking in general.

But wait, there's more.  The overall appeal of a candidate should be based not just on the policy positions he (or, now, she) holds, but also on that candidate's potential to head a winning campaign. A positive but weak candidate offers little promise to the potential voter;  similarly, a negative, strong candidate poses greater danger than a negative one who can't get elected.  In fact, knowing my friend, his comment denigrating Hillary must be based at least as much on her weakness as an electoral draw (in his view) as with dissatisfaction with her policies.  (Though it could be just personal distaste, but I will give him more credit than that.)

So, my ranking on potential or demonstrated competency in heading a general election campaign is as follows (best to worst):

Reagan; Obama; WJClinton; Eisenhower; Johnson; Kennedy; GW Bush; Nixon; Carter; Trump; Romney; McCain; Gore; Humphrey; GHW Bush; Kerry; HR Clinton; Ford; Stevenson; Dole; Dukakis; Stevenson; McGovern; Mondale. 

That ranking is largely based on the track record (wins and losses), but secondarily on the quality of the opponent(s), with tiebreakers based on my observations on their skills, or lack of skills, in things like debates, organizing a campaign team, building a coalition, sticking to an effective script, improvising, etc.  I rate Trump (#10 of the 24) higher than Hillary (#17) by quite a bit, because of his mastery of public relations (and her lack of it) and psychological warfare, and I don't give Hillary much credit for being a highly competent, but unexciting, debater.  Of course their mettle has not yet been put to the definitive test.  If Hillary wins from this position, she would be the lowest-rated campaigner to win a general election in his lifetime.

I now put these two sets of rankings together to make a composite measure of the "Benefit/Damage Capacity"; again, from my friend's point of view.  The approach I have chosen is to look at the variation from the mean ranking (12.5), in terms of the policy ranking; then adjusting by the variation from the mean on electability:  those positive on policy gain benefit by being more electable (and lose it by being unelectable); while the negative value for those worse than average is intensified if they are more electable.

The table below gives the results:

Major Party POTUS CandidatesPolicyElectability


Benefit/Threat formula
2008 Obama (also 2012)6217
1992 WJClinton (also 1996)12310
1964 Johnson10510
1960  Kennedy1168
1976 Carter (also 1980)997
1968 Humphrey4147
2000 Gore7135
Kerry5164
Stevenson2194
2016 HR Clinton14173
Ford17181
1996 Dole19201
1988 Dukakis3211
1972  McGovern1231
GHW Bush (also 1992)15150
Goldwater22220
1984 Mondale824-5
2012 Romney1811-7
Nixon (also 1968, 1972)168-8
McCain2012-8
1956 – Eisenhower134-9
Drumpf2110-11
GW Bush (also 2004)247-17

Reagan (also 1984)23


1


-22              








The majority of the candidates clearly fall into the “meh” category; either moderate, not very electable, or both.  Most of the ones who are ideologically potent, either positive or negative (always from the point of view ascribed to “my friend”), make up for it by watering down their potency with weak electoral skills.   The ones at the extreme ends of this composite ranking—Obama, Slick Willie Clinton, Reagan, Dubya--were either unusually strong moderates, or the potent combination of hardcore conservative with folksy appeal. 

There is one other exception to the variety of meh-ness, and his case frankly shows the weakness of this approach.  On the policy scale, I would argue that Eisenhower was moderately appealing, he should probably be the highest-rated Republican from my liberal friend’s perspective of all candidates in his lifetime.  (Nixon did have some progressive accomplishments to his name, but we know better:  they were sops to the left at a time his team was at its weakest in Congress, and he didn’t really mean it.)  Ike was a “progressive conservative” in some meaningful senses:  he opposed segregation in Little Rock, built infrastructure, appointed liberal Supreme Court justices Earl Warren and Potter Stewart, and wisely gave his greatest attention to those things that modern American Presidents do which really matter:  foreign and military affairs.  In a very conservative time, he dared to pick some spots to challenge the sleepy Cold War consensus (think of his historically significant comment referring to the "military-industrial complex").

Here’s the point:  he’s right in the middle on the “policy appeal” scale; I put him slightly below the median.  His slightly negative value on policy appeal becomes magnified by his enormous electability to make him one of the greater negative-value candidates of the era.  This is unfair to him:  if you move him up one slot, to twelfth, his value becomes positive vs. the mean and he goes up to the top rank on the positive side. 

Hillary drops right in there around Bill and Ike; in her spot (again, slightly negative), her low electability makes her a net positive (her slightly negative appeal is more than canceled by the “positive” of being low in potential).  If, though, we shift her up two slots, to twelfth, she becomes a net negative (-4 to be precise).  Either way, though, she fits into that mediocre group and is nowhere near the worst. 

As for Trump, I would argue that ideologically he is not the most diametrically opposite candidate to our ideal, though he has aspects within his limited range of expressed policy positions that are unusually toxic.  On social issues, or on tendency toward military aggression, he was nowhere near the worst in his party's field this year.  (Though, speaking of "least appealing POTUS candidate",  there were about 15 worse than Hillary running this year.) Neither is he one of the strongest candidates from the point of view of electability, but I see him as clearly ranking third-worst in terms of damage potential.  Of course, I may be underrating him—it’s happened before. 

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Hey, I'm Angry, Too!

Let’s Make a Deal with Donald
Donald Trump must immediately eat shit and die. Only a Trumpesquely huge act of self-sacrifice could possibly atone for the damage he has already done to the Republic.
OK, following the DrumpfCon Method, that was my initial negotiating position.  I’m willing to discuss something less than that.  For example, I’m willing to consider the notion that his public self-execution by copravorification could be delayed until the day before the election; that would please House Republicans desperate to avoid his taint and could give hope to the hapless sap lacking in dignity and self-esteem who accepts Drumpf’s VP nomination.  Another alternative might be for him to give up any and all of his positively-valued assets to the Veterans Administration and go into permanent exile in North Korea.  But I will not give on the stipulation that he must first consume massive quantities of his own turds on the Rachel Maddow Show.
Am I serious about these somewhat intemperate demands?  About as serious as The Donald is when he says he will build a beautiful wall with Mexico and make them pay for it, or apply a 45% tariff to all Chinese imports.  Al Franken calls it “kidding on the square”; it's exaggeration.   Am I being unkind, say, to his loved ones, in calling for his reduction to dust, non-biodegradable plastic, and a pile of crap?  First, he is little more than that now; secondly, I’m sure that Melania will be able to find another sugar daddy, even if--as I imagine is the case--he will leave her precious little.  So, no.
What about the profanity here?  I have generally avoided it in this blog, but excrement is a vital part of our ecosystem; we should recognize it for what it is.  We don’t need to bow down to it, as the Republicans are doing, but we should put it to work in fertilizing a better future.
Predictit.org Pricing as a Means of forecasting the Electoral College Vote
My hobbyhorse has opened markets on the outcome of a fair number of states--not all, but the ones where they feel there might be enough interest on both sides to make a market.  These are the two-part choice only:  will the Democratic party win the state (no names of candidates), and will the Republican party win it?  The prices go from 1 to 100 in one-cent increments only, and the opposing side has the complement (i.e., the price for No on Republican party winning=price for Yes on Democrat winning).  The absence of an “Other” I think is an unfortunate, minor omission I will discuss below    
The states are ranked below by their cost to buy Democratic Yes (yesterday’s price--I have today’s to show the amount of random variation/trending that one sees from day to day).   We can  go down the order and see, to a given market-driven level of probability, what states would be expected to go Democratic.  The states marked with a * are those I called true Toss-up states in my previous post with the electoral vote map.
So, we start with those that have no markets but are assumed to be safe Republican (including the 1 EV in NE that went for Obama in 2008; I’d love to see a market just on that one):
States (EV)
6/4 Price for Democratic Yes  (6/5 price if different)
Cumulative Repuublican EV
Solid R plus 1 NE EV
N/A
153
GA  (16); IN (11)
24
180
AZ (11)
33
191
NC (15)
39 (40)
206
FL (29)
56
235
OH*  (18)
58 (55)
253
NH (4)
59 (60)
257
IA* (6)
59 (57)
263
PA (20
63
283
NV* (6)
65 (70)
289
VA* (13)
67 (68)
302
WI (10)
68
312
CO (9)
69 (66)
321
MI (16)
69 (71)
337

Effectively, 25% of the cumulative market weight would have Trump at 180  Electoral Votes, that rises to 206 Electoral votes at 40%.  Then there is a fairly large gap, which passes the median (50%) mark, until it hits a group of states with between 50% and 60% likelihood of Democratic win.  Even winning all four of those, which has the support of 100-60=40% of the market weight, would not get Trump to 270 electoral votes; he needs PA to get over the hump (or, interestingly, NV without PA to get to 269, which, with the sizable Republican majority of House delegations, would almost certainly be enough to guarantee his victory). I differ with the markets somewhat; I think VA and NV less likely to go Democratic than the majority of Predictit.org bidders, while I am more optimistic with regard to FL (at least unless Trump goes with Marco Rubio or Rick Scott as his VP nominee).
Two other states currently have Predictit.org markets, NY and CA.  Each was at 86% on 6/4 (CA moved to 88% today) , which I find ridiculously low (I have invested a little in the obvious outcome in each), but if they went Republican, their combined  84 Electoral votes, with the other states above, would take Trump to a monstrous 421 votes and would surely signify the end of Western civilization as we know it.
I need to revisit the  unconventional call on NM in my previous electoral map as being only “Leans Democratic”, instead of being much more solid.  My earlier calculation was based on the Republicans' effectively mobilizing their downstate base  (Very West Texas, very right wing, and very anti-immigrant) and a lack of enthusiasm for Hillary in the highly liberal North.  Trump’s feud with Susana Martinez, which may be papered over but cannot be ignored, and his failure so far to get Ted Cruz to come out for him, together have put an end to my speculation along those lines.   I have to resist being stubborn about changing my expectations when facts are substantially changed.
Third-Party News
The ploy last week by Bill Kristol, the neo-con editor of the conservative National Review magazine, who announced that he had identified a "credible conservative" candidate willing to run against Trump and Clinton, someone with "a real chance" of winning, turned out to be largely a head fake. The name he had in mind was David French, a respected writer on the Review's staff, but someone with a name recognition rating approximately equal to the quantity of his "real chance", about 0.01%. Of course, with no party, no ballot access, it's probably lower than that, and French has only expressed his willingness, not a formal candidacy, with the clock ticking on getting signatures to be on state ballots.
So, for the time being, we are left--beyond the two major parties--with the finalized Gary Johson-William Weld ticket for the Libertarians, and Jill Stein for the Green Party.  The widespread antipathy for both Clinton and Trump does offer some hope to these outsiders, particularly the Libertarians. Some polling indicates their support is near 10%, not enough to get them on the debate platform, which might enable them, with a strong performance, to become a credible mainstream alternative to do some real damage, but, if that kind of number held up, could mean the difference in several closely-contested states.  History suggests, however, that third-party support fades a bit in the final days of the general election campaign, when voters have to get real about which of the two major-party candidates they can live with. 
The Libertarian ticket is designed to attract moderate Republicans:  both Johnson and Weld are what would be considered social liberals.  Neither is particularly pure as a small-government libertarian, I would say.  They also have a bit of an issue in that their policy platform doesn't differ enough from Trump's positions (to the extent coherent positions can be derived from his statements).  In this regard, they could draw more or less equally from independents who have more personal aversion to both Trump and Clinton; I don't know that they will be successful drawing Cruz-type Republicans dissatisfied with Trump.  Then there is Stein, who might capture a percent or two among Sanders leftists who can't reconcile themselves with Clinton but see no value in Johnson/Weld; no meaning here except opportunity lost for the Democrats.  If predictit.org creates a market for Johnson's popular vote in the general election--something they have not done but I would expect--I would bump up my previous expectation of 2-4% to the 4-6% range, if available. 
In predictit.org terms, someone who really thinks that a third-party  might win a particular state (and is later proven right) could win twice, a return of close to 100%, by buying No on both the Democratic and Republican markets.  I would, however, remind the reader that neither John Anderson nor Ross Perot ever won any states.  
Still more Predictit.org News
There is a market on the winning party of the Presidential election; this one includes "Other" as an option (currently at 4%; I still hold a couple of shares at 3% from when Bloomberg was thinking of running, which I thought would boost that price, which I could then sell at a profit); the 64-37% current Democratic/Republican markets are oversubscribed on the positive side, which I would expect to correct. This market is still open to new participants, whereas the market for the name of the person elected in 2016 (an old one, started last year, which has names like Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, and all the failed Republican candidates) has the maximum allowed number of participants at 5000 and thus is closed to new participants for the time being. That one has Clinton 59%; Trump at 37% (those figures correspond well to the state-by-state markets tabled above) , Sanders at an unrealistic 7%, Johnson at 4%, and Biden at 6%--which I would describe as somewhat half-wishful thinking by those Clinton-haters expecting Hillary to be indicted and drop out, similar to the thinking I had with my semi-snark bids for Bloomberg previously. I never really thought he could win, but I did think the market could move up. In this game, there are the permanent bids, where you plan to hold until the end when the market is "resolved", and the market timing "investment" moves, when you like the price and buy in until such time as you don't like the risk/reward anymore.

Saturday, June 04, 2016

More Sports Urgency: Muhammad Ali


"The Greatest of All Times"

This boastful claim, which has now become a commonplace and is abbreviated GOAT (no periods necessary), was originated by our man Muhammad Ali, born Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.   I was truly a fan from the beginning--or at least from my beginning, I listened to the first Sonny Liston fight on the radio, read the articles in the Louisville Courier-Journal.  Yes, it's true--he was my hometown hero, though he was from far on the other side of town, and older, and he'd already moved on to bigger and better things by the time I was aware of him (I was too young to have noticed his Olympics exploits).

Being a fan of Muhammad Ali was not an easy thing to do--there was much to take in, much to overlook, and it required great patience.  The second worst was when he was barred from fighting during much of his peak age for the draft evasion rap that he eventually beat.  But he made up for it later, with what was the absolute worst, staying in the ring too long, after his skills had faded, taking too many punches.  He really didn't win any of the fights with Leon Spinks or with Earnie Shavers, and Larry Holmes--his former sparring partner--beat him up very badly.   And repeatedly.  Then there was the second Liston fight, in the tiny town of Lewiston, Maine:  Much as I wanted Ali to win that one, I will never believe anything other than that its result--in which Liston went down quick, to a phantom punch, and stayed down as Ali hammed it up--was a fix.

On the other hand, he was able to come up with unexpected, beautiful (or at least, as beautiful as boxing ever can get) sports triumphs--his first fight with Liston, others during his first reign as champion, the Thrilla in Manila (third Joe Frazier fight), and above all, his victory over George Foreman, who had literally lifted Frazier off the ground with punches in his fight with him and had seemed practically invincible before the fight.  The Foreman fight showed Ali at his very best, as he combined tactical excellence with incredible skill (in taking all the punches in his rope-a-dope pose without getting hurt), and even finishing with the powerful knockout--something that often eluded him in his many victories on points through his career.

It was not necessary for me, a kid, to stand up for him when he changed his name and joined the Black Muslims.  I didn't like that religion at all, but I felt no need to condemn someone for their beliefs.  Nor did I have any problem with his seeking conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War; when he threw off his "slave name" (though it has a nice ring to it), he went down the  path which led to rejecting the "involuntary servitude" of the draft, too.   I didn't share his views about the war at the time, though I did recognize at the time that his stance was sincere.

There was his personality:  a womanizer much of the time (not exactly standard Black Muslim stuff, I believe), narcissistic, but also very humorous, with a youthful, mischievous streak.  Much of the bragging, "uppity" stuff that put white people off to him was said in fun and was taken wrong; some of it was intentionally getting under the skin of the bigots, using the power he had to upset them.  I liked him, but he surrounded himself with too many sycophants, and he may have listened to them too much.

There was a side to him that was way beyond all that, though:  in his day, he was one of the most popular people in the world.  He reached out to the rest of the world from his humble beginnings in a small Mideastern city, and the world honored him.

Then there were his health problems later in life, the gradual erosion of his nervous system and motor functions.  There is little doubt that his boxing career contributed to them or caused them, and little doubt that it led to his eventual demise this week.  Still, his last years were dignified, honorable, and added tragic depth to his story, which is clearly one for the ages.  In sport, and beyond.