tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-105944932024-03-18T10:03:46.293-06:00Stonerback to "High Plains Drifting"---Anche Sognando d'Italia
"The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity." — Leo TolstoyChin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.comBlogger1042125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-54904060109290319752024-03-17T17:47:00.001-06:002024-03-18T10:03:15.230-06:00Part II: The International One<p><b><i> Chuck, Well-done! </i></b></p><p>I salute Sen. Majority Leader Schumer in his call for new elections in Israel. </p><p> I respond to those who object to interference in another nation's affairs by pointing to interference in past political affairs here by the same unprincipled man now heading Israel's government. The extremist nature of Netanyahu's coalition is temporarily overshadowed only by the necessities of active warfare, but the conduct of neither does honor to Israel. They take their cues from us, or vice versa; we need to seek what's right from one of our closest allies to be true to ourselves.<br /></p><p>There is also the fact that Schumer--to be plain-spoken about it, a classic New York Jewish politician--is the one to make the call. If friends can't call friends, who can they call? Schumer's loyalty to Israel over the years, through thick and thin, is unquestionable by anyone of any stripe. </p><p>Is anyone in Israel listening? I think the answer is 'Yes'. For one thing, they know that President Biden, who is playing this very cagily, could have stopped Schumer from making the statement at this time. His response upon receiving prior notification appears to have been, "Go ahead. Knock yourself out." (Schumer taking that as permission...)</p><p>I have only one question: To whom is this call addressed? Did he miss the Benny Gantz visit? Was he the only one who did (besides Biden, who dodged it)? In my view, the intended recipients are Schumer's contacts among Likud, who are "ghosting" that call for now. One more humanitarian disaster is still required. </p><p>I heard the contours of the newly-proposed deal reported tonight. These seem more reasonable for a partial hostage release and six-week ceasefire, with the threat of an (approved) Rafah offensive by Israel, accompanied by some (panic) evacuations of civilians hanging over the head if Hamas doesn't take it. I think Hamas will do so, once the appropriate ratio of prison release is determined (somewhere around 20:1 has been empirically observed, so far, in deaths; that provides a rough estimate). </p><p>If the Hamas counter-offer after temporary ceasefire is release of all hostages for permanent ceasefire, Israel should take it, even if the terms require relaxation of the current siege. (This Netanyahu government wouldn't take it, of course, either way. Thus the Schumer ask.) When and if Hamas violated the ceasefire again, Israel could continue the liquidation campaign, and they would have the hostage situation finally ended. That is why Hamas will never release all the hostages they control. </p><p>The outcome obtained by Israel so far is the middle result: not the complete removal of the Hamas leadership, which was the stated war aim, but more than the minimal one of making Northern Gaza into a buffer zone, buying critical moments of time for their defense against future launched attacks from Gaza. Effectively, they have a siege around the remaining parts of Hamas-dominated Gaza, as long as the Rafah border with Egypt holds. <br /></p><p>My conclusion, and Schumer's, is that there is no way forward, no partners for enduring peace. Time to shake things up, politically. What he really is looking forward to is a parliamentary coup, a change in authority, with Netanyahu out as PM, but it is slightly more diplomatic to ask for new elections, which if they occurred, would produce the desired result, but much too slowly. (Schumer also called for changes in the West Bank and in Gaza.) Gantz' message is that he would still need to liquidate Hamas if he were to lead the government. </p><p><b><i>Ukraine Slava! <br /></i></b></p><p>Winter in the plains of Ukraine is no time for heavy ground maneuvers. There has been a season of hunkering down, while the Russian artillery and missiles faced less defensive interception or retaliatory strikes. That period has to end soon; the clock is ticking. Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to find the formula to allow the foreign aid bill to get approval without doing anything. Very laissez-faire! Doesn't quite get 'er done, though...<br /></p><p>Europe is filling in, for the moment. Even the rightists are seeing the light, as Hungary approves Sweden's joining NATO and Georgia Meloni's far-right Italian government is fully backing Ukraine's cause.</p><p><b><i>Immigration</i></b></p><p>If you think this belongs in the forthcoming domestic affairs post, I choose to differ. Migration is a worldwide problem, and the global nature of the challenge is beginning to be felt more acutely on our southern border now--before, it seemed just a hemispheric problem (which it is, also). I do think there is a hemispheric solution to the problem, one that requires active participation with Mexico for mutual benefit. It would look like massive expansion of a US consulate in one of the northern Mexican cities, Monterrey, maybe. There is precedent for that kind of cooperation, but it's the kind of idea that doesn't get traction. The only kind of workable solution moves the problem off our shore/border, but we pay for (cheaper) services in the chosen focus location. <br /></p><p><b><i> </i></b></p><p><b><i> </i></b></p><p><b><i></i></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXGKCWA1IAqHxHXYvTrEsb6VFo29u4Yh8jHnfsU4sStIvVL1uQiBqcE2RQpKaWjloUKjpddvxmGDjEqBVQV0kO0KSq8e2kG0KRh0lrwjJfiygvIzI9nW5UKc2w8vQ6X9H_gQMfUjx1eVixBjP0MSD0aNOPaLVseXndH-LDHDGbIdvdDzPUUWM2/s1280/20240318_095613_resized.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXGKCWA1IAqHxHXYvTrEsb6VFo29u4Yh8jHnfsU4sStIvVL1uQiBqcE2RQpKaWjloUKjpddvxmGDjEqBVQV0kO0KSq8e2kG0KRh0lrwjJfiygvIzI9nW5UKc2w8vQ6X9H_gQMfUjx1eVixBjP0MSD0aNOPaLVseXndH-LDHDGbIdvdDzPUUWM2/s320/20240318_095613_resized.jpg" width="320" /></a></i></b></div><b><i><br />Viewing The Trumpian Menace from the Outside<br /></i></b><p></p><p>Any sensible foreign government should have considered both of the two main outcomes of this election and what their national interest should require<b><i> </i></b>for each. If one outcome is particularly bad for their country, it only makes sense to do what they can to affect the outcome, only being careful that they not have it backfire and produce a contrary effect. </p><p>For the most part, though, it neither makes sense to commit too much for the Biden win strategy, nor for a Trump one. Best not to commit. Thus the Taiwan's election led to a clear status quo outcome, Xi has pulled back a little from his aggressive posture, and the great democracy of Indonesia takes a more studied distance from the pro-Obama Widjojo days. Even Putin knew enough to say he preferred Biden because he is more predictable: unarguable, yet showing respect for the internationally-infamous Drumpfen unpredictability. Japan, India and Korea seem more concerned with domestic affairs--well, why not? So are we. </p><p>That seems to be the strategy with regard to mitigating climate change, every nation doing its own thing, the combined effect being neither synergistic nor sufficient. I won't deny progress is being made, both in developing alternative energy sources and in raising awareness. But the global temperature is progressing on the graph toward the upper-right corner, too, as is the graph of major serious weather events. . <br /></p><p>More elections coming all over, I hear. In the U.K., the ruling Conservative party is in a position similar to Netanyahu's, with a serious parliamentary drubbing forthcoming when the election is finally called. In England's case, though, there's a statutory requirement that will make it happen this year. It will be interesting to see how the Labour party will change the path, seemingly irreversible, that is steadily moving London away from relevancy. Argentina threw in its lot with a major shake-up in a Trumpian
direction, but that is an extreme reaction with plenty of popular
frustration behind it. </p><p><b><i>The Summer Olympics</i></b></p><p>The Paris Olympics will be held this summer, after the Republican convention and before the Democratic one. I am hopeful<i><b> </b></i>they will provide a welcome distraction from the political wars. So far, I've heard too little about the preparations for them, either here or there. I did hear a few sports (softball, baseball among them) are not being retained; I've heard each sport federation is making its own rules on transgendered, I've heard those Russians who haven't failed their drug tests will be competing under the Olympics flag, not their own. That's about it. I haven't heard much about the USA teams in specific sports.<br /></p><p> I'm very idiosyncratic about this, both a strong supporter of the Olympic ideal and a fervent opponent of the way it is done with all the nationalism, which is contrary to that ideal. It is possible to make the centralized sport federations able to conduct competition qualification, but the block to that is that the resources would have to be provided by nations, perhaps through the medium of the United Nations. This will no doubt feature in my upcoming listing of my brilliant ideas so far not picked up by anyone....</p><p><b><i>The Oscars</i></b></p><p>A bit of a stretch, I admit, to consider the awards of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, basically a LA.-centered bunch, in the international affairs category. There were several awards given outside of the US film center, once again--let us not forget the recent-year successes of "Parasite" and "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once"--but the liberal US coastal elite judgments were clearly present. As an electoral body, quite predictable. </p><p>"American Fiction" winning the adapted screenplay suited the self-referential critical Zeitgeist, for sure. So did the award to local comeback hero Robert Downey, Jr. for his role as the McCarthy-ist foil to Oppenheimer, post-bomb. Above all, note the John & Yoko-inspired animated short winner calling for "Peace Now" (Sean Lennon on the scene)--I preferred the French "Pachyderme", if one wants to go deeper. </p><p>The award for documentary feature to "20 Days in Mariupol" showing the brutality of the war in Ukraine also showed that liberal sensibility, which now increasingly shows some awareness of the world beyond. (My point being that the show tells.) There was also the Godzilla movie getting the award for effects, the Mayazaki film winning the animated feature, and the four awards to the itinerant sci-fi costume drama "Poor Things", the movie that finally showed what Yorgos Lanthimos could achieve. "Zone of Interest" dominated the foreign film lane, a bit of a ruse for the British production, but it was performed and filmed on location at Auschwitz in the original languages (German, Polish, Yiddish), which is a real credential to be foreign to us. Finally, I mention "Anatomy of a Fall", the one that got away (likewise, I couldn't catch it at the cine.). <br /></p><p>To close, we transition through the shocker highlight of the Oscars' Obit show, the face of Alexei Navalny. With the eponymous documentary feature of the previous year an Oscars winner, they earned the right. </p><p>Shocking but not surprising, Navalny's death was a challenge to the world, a pure expression of ruthlessness. Navalny will be taking the cherished position in that square of political martyrs that many cities in Russia now have. There are others that are due to have places in this pantheon. But not just yet, it seems: Putin may have been faking mortal health symptoms. He has no doubt told his doctors to keep him alive until he can clinch a victory in 2025, though he's not sure which President he has to defeat to do it. When that doesn't happen, he will wither up and give out. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p><b><i> </i></b><br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-26862883902148682882024-02-28T07:17:00.001-07:002024-03-17T17:47:40.053-06:00Overly-Delayed Reporting: I <p><b><i><span style="font-size: large;"> Part I: Sports</span></i></b></p><p><i>Pardon my self-indulgence<b>, </b>but I will survey them starting from those in which I'm most interested at this moment. What will be present is the level of passion in my recounting.</i></p><p><i><b>Basketball : </b></i>In the NBA, we head toward the real thing. By that, I mean the playoffs--including even the gimmicky "Play-in" rounds, in which the teams with the 7th to 10th best regular-season records in each Conference have single-game matchups seeking to earn the #7 and #8 seeds in the full-scale best-of-7 playoff rounds. Those spots--which would then face #2 and #1 in the first round--would not seem so prized, but two recent title winners with large fan bases, large payrolls, and big aspirations to return to the top--the Warriors and Lakers--are likely to occupy spots in those high-pressure Play-in games. If they were to get through, they would pose a real threat to the teams seeded #1 and #2. </p><p>As things stand now, those top spots are occupied by newcomers to the top echelon; their regular-season performances have been major surprises. One of these surprises is the Minnesota TimberWolves: their acquisition at the trade deadline a year ago of 7+-foot Rudy Gobert didn't seem to work out, but this year their Two-Towers-reminiscent frontline (with Karl Anthony Towns--KAT) has worked seamlessly with rising star Anthony Edwards ("Ant-man"), and they have the best road record in the league, itself a promising stat for the playoffs, regardless of whether they end up first in Conference. The other surprise is the Oklahoma City Thunder, making a return to strength after a decade-long rebuild, starring emerging superstar Shai Gilgeous-Alexander ("SGA") and talented freshman stringbean center Chet Holmgren.* <br /></p><p>The discussion so far doesn't even reach to the two most popular choices of analysts to win the West, who are currently sitting at #3 and #4. The Denver Nuggets are the defending champions, and their combo of Jamal Murray, whose presence made the difference in getting the team over the top, and Nikola Jokic, likely to win his third MVP now and one of the most well-rounded players ever in the game, is unsurpassed in quality and now truly proven. The LA Clippers, who should finish no worse than their current 4th, no matter how slack some of their regular-season games are, have without doubt the highest-ever quality assemblage of wing talent--Paul George, Kawhi Leonard, James Hardin, and Russell Westbrook, all future Hall-of-Famers--but will it fly? That's unclear. </p><p>Also unclear are the fates of potential magic combinations fitted together for this season in Dallas (Luka Doncic and Kyre Irving!) and Phoenix (Kevin Durant and Bradley Beal!) The other two teams in the Conference mix are playoff unknowns like the current top two: the New Orleans Pelicans overachieved, then they got Zion Williamson back (I just heard him described as "a tank that flies"); the Sacramento Kings have a pairing that has proven strong in Domantas Sabonis and DeAaron Fox, but their sometimes inconsistent play suggests playoff vulnerability. <i>Bottom Line: Wide open, once someone can beat the Denver Nuggets. </i></p><p>The Eastern Conference is different, but interesting in its own way. There is a clear favorite, the Boston Celtics, who have reached the highest level with their own Jayson Tatum-Jaylen Brown combo but not won at that level. This year they added two critical new pieces in point guard Jrue Holliday, who's a top man-to-man defender, and multi-talented big man Kristaps Porzingis. As long as all four can be on the court together, they are unlikely to lose a series, so we'll see how long that lasts. <br /></p><p>The team that looked mostly likely to challenge them, the Philadelphia 76ers, lost the big half of their key pair, Joel Embiid, to a knee injury. He should be back for the playoffs, but whether he will have the dominant play and the great coordination with scoring point guard Tyrese Maxey seen earlier in the year (Embiid was the leading candidate for MVP then, the team right up there with Boston) is a question mark, as is the team's seeding for the playoffs. So, the team we should expect to meet the Celtics in the Conference finals is the Milwaukee Bucks, a recent championship team that added the immense talents of Damian Lillard to those of superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo. They haven't fully meshed yet, but that could still happen in this season's playoffs. The Miami Heat and their Jimmy Butler-Bam Adebayo pairing is another proven winner: they reached the Finals last year. They will have to knock over a couple of favored squads on the road to make the Conference finals, but they can't be counted out. <br /></p><p>Based on improved regular-season performance, either the Knicks or Cavaliers should reasonably hope to make the Eastern Conference semis, but if the 76ers can re-coalesce well, they'll likely grab one of the spots which currently have their name on them. <i>Bottom Line: I'll go with the chalk: the healthy Celtics to cruise through the Conference playoffs and outlast whichever Western team survives their side. </i></p><p>Closing my commentary on the NBA, I will say their marketing is doing just fine. The "In-season tournament" thing they came up with this year was not as bad as I feared, the key success being their ability to schedule flexibly enough that competing teams' games counted for their regular-season standings (all but the championship game itself), and teams no longer in the tourney carried on more or less normally. So, rather than detracting from the poor old regular season, they added some interest early in it. Also, the league is prodding players and coaches to bring their stars out on court more consistently. I think that particular one will end with more stars' time on court being severely and strategically rationed--more games played, less minutes per game. Of course, the main thing is the playoffs themselves, and I think the outlook for that is awesome. <i> <br /></i></p><p><i>TMB? </i>Still more on basketball, as we must look at their feeder league, a/k/a college basketball.<i> </i>For my money, there is a clearly dominant player, Zach Edey of Purdue. At 7-foot-4 with skills, Edey is a giant among mortal hoopsters. He is a future NBA presence, though success there is far from guaranteed. At present, the Boilermakers are the #1 ranked team, though positions in the top 10 have been very fluid this season. Some of it is the inconsistency due to the rapid turnover of teams--besides the "one and done" single season for some extremely talented players, a key feature of recent seasons has been the transfer window, allowing players to move between colleges without having to lose a year, and permitting strong college teams to rebuild quickly--but there is also a broadening of the number of powerful teams, with an increased number of upsets by unranked teams.</p><p>My personal primary focus in college basketball in 2024, as it is most years, concerns the University of Kentucky Wildcats. In the words of Elvis Costello, This Year's Model is quite attractive, with talent, skills, and a recently-discovered ability to play defense. Coach John Calipari has done his usual masterful job harvesting top prospects from around the country who like that team's history of producing great pro basketball players. (Quick quiz: How many starring players in the NBA analysis above played for U of K?+)</p><p>Although the team's record is not that impressive at 19-8 (compared to something like 25-2 of Purdue or Connecticut), these Wildcats have shown they can defeat anyone on the right day. They have all the elements to succeed and will win big on their best days, and they even have good free-throw shooting, which always becomes essential to proceed through the tournament. What an NCAA champion has to prove, though, is that they can survive and win somehow on their worst day--they've had a few shocking losses, too. </p><p><i>If necessary, I could explain at length why I simply have had to be part of what became Big Blue Nation, uncool and incorrect as that may seem. But I think the current reality is sufficient justification for my support.</i></p><p>The NCAA tournament will be extremely difficult to handicap, and I'm not ready to do so. I would say the team I've been most consistently impressed with is Tennessee, though they've had their bad games, too. I haven't yet gotten used to watching women's college basketball, though I recognize that there are incredibly talented athletes there. Like men's, the women's college game is about organized defense and timely scoring to win close ones, with the coach's influence front and center. <br /></p><p><b><i>Baseball: </i></b> I'm just as excited about the upcoming baseball season as I am about the current hoops one, it's just that I don't have so much to say about the present, which is spring training. There's plenty of recent past, for which I 'll give some quick takes, and the future pennant races, which are far off at present. </p><p>There are some teams clearly favored to make the playoffs, either as division winner or as wild card (there are now three of each in the playoffs for each league). Having a bye in the first-round series, as the two division winners with the best records get, has not looked like an advantage against a hot team coming off a winning wild card series, anyway not as often as their regular season advantages would suggest. The objective, then, is making the playoffs, anywhere from 1-6 . After that, throwing the dice and winning two or three series beyond are the icing, sprinkles, and ornamental crown on the cake.Wild card expansion has opened up late-season excitement for a lot more teams than previously, so there is benefit. As a remedy, though, I think they should give greater advantage to the home team in the Divisional Series, which should expand to seven games. <br /></p><p>The LA Dodgers are the super team in the re-making, but I don't expect them to look that way early in the season, even with their massive lineup. They signed the two top free agents, Japanese ballplayers Yoshinobu Yamamoto (best pitcher in the Japanese leagues the last couple of years) and the One and Only Shohei Ohtani. Ohtani will not be pitching in 2024 but will have this season to exhibit his hitting without any limitations. As we can look forward to his full-time return to pitching next year, along with that of Dodger stalwart pitchers Clayton Kershaw and Walker Buehler, it looks like 2025 could be their breakthrough. Although they have had great regular-season success, the only year the Dodgers won the World Series title so far this century was the Covid-shortened season of 2020. <br /></p><p>In 2023, the Houston Astros and Atlanta Braves were the teams that were supposed to be the best in each league, but they were each knocked aside in short series, with the Texas Rangers and Arizona Diamondbacks the surprise World Series opponents. Congratulations to the Rangers for finally getting the title for the first time since the hazy days of the Minnesota Twins and Washington Senators in the Sixties and beyond (literally, a long story). </p><p>As a fan of the Cincinnati Reds (no title since 1990), I am highly enthused by my team's chances to break into the playoffs, which they almost succeeded in doing last year (being edged out in the last week for a wild card spot by the Diamondbacks and Cubs). With the kind of young talent the Reds have, though, making the playoffs this year is just one step up the ladder, without a ceiling in sight. They made a number of moves in the offseason which shored up their depth, both in the field and on the mound, but they have not (yet) signed the veteran ace starter they will need to compete in the postseason in 2024. There are some still available--yes, I'm a bit impatient. <i>Bottom Line: Teams making the playoffs, from near-certain to wild-ass speculation--Braves, Astros, BlueJays, Rangers, Rays, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Phillies, Reds, Mets, Yankees, Indians. Sorry, Orioles, Padres, Cubs, Brewers, Bosox. </i><br /></p><p><b><i>Football (a/k/a Soccer): </i></b></p><p>It's fair to say that the 2024 season-ending race in the English Premier League should be as exciting as there has been in recent memory. Yes, there was that incredible result in 2019 when Leicester won as a 100-1 shot, but this looks like three quality teams battering each other all the way to the finish. Manchester City, Arsenal, and Liverpool. Like in the jousting tourney, if Lancelot, Tristram, and Gawain faced off in a three-way. </p><p>City is the favorite, the world champion club team and defending champ as well, but they are not leading, and they have come up short on a couple of opportunities. Liverpool is making a mad dash to win all the trophies before their beloved coach Jurgen Klopp moves on after this season. And Arsenal's young, exciting team looks to exploit the opportunity to reach the top and save their coach's job. </p><p>I see Liverpool having the opportunity to create some space in front
of Manchester City by winning their game with them at home on March 10, then maintaining that lead to the end with a favorable schedule.
If they don't do that, perhaps Arsenal, which has the toughest schedule
down the stretch and therefore would be least favored of the trio, will
do Liverpool a favor on March 27 and make City lose points. That's
what Chelsea did in their games, twice. <br /></p><p>I can be fairly objective, because my dog is not in this race, really. Chelsea has suffered, mostly, since the Ukraine War took Russian oligarch owner Roman Abramovich away from his favorite toy. Since then, there has been comparable amounts of money spent under the new ownership, but without comparable success, and the fans are nervous at a second straight finish in the middle of the 20-team table, as they've come to expect a lot. Chelsea has played well at times, particularly against Manchester City, but has come up short against teams that in past years they would defeat. <br /></p><p>There is a promising rebuilding effort under veteran coach Mauricio Pochettino around a variety of young players, but whether it will be given time to flourish is unclear, especially because there may be crippling penalties imposed soon for unwise spending in recent years<i>. Bottom Line: The F.A. Cup is the last chance before Chelsea does something silly like bringing Mourinho back, one last time, so they better win it!</i></p><p>In International soccer, Chelsea's not in it, and I haven't been watching yet. I'm hoping to see a team other than Real Madrid in the final. The big event internationally will be the competition in the Olympics in Paris in July. I will comment more on the Olympics more generally as that event draws night. I am dearly anticipating the Olympics as a global break from political ugliness, which is what it was always meant to be. </p><p><i><b>Tennis: </b></i>My interest in the tennis tours has a bimodal distribution (two humps). The first was the opening of the new season and the emergence of the patterns of player performance that come in waves through the year, seen best through the Australian Open, nowadays a fair early test across the board. The second is the summer, with the French, Wimbledon, and the US Open to climax the season. My takeaways from the early season are as follows: 1) The Aussie showed that Novak Djokovic and Iga Swiatek's positions at the top of the rankings are not so secure. 2) The herd is coming after them, a continuing flow of 18-21 year-olds on both tours armed with all-round games. Jannik Sinner and Coco Gauff are examples, but not the only ones. 3) Titles, including Grand Slams, are going to be distributed more widely than the domination in recent years by the Big Three in men, or to the currently-reigning queen of the women's tour. <i>Bottom Line: Carlos Alcaraz will need to win the US Open to take the top spot, but Djokovic will hold him off one more year. Swiatek's consistency should keep her on top for the women though she can be outslugged. </i> <br /></p><p><i><b>Football (the American kind): </b></i>I watched the Super Bowl fairly closely, though not the pregame or halftime shows. The 49ers brought a good game and had chances to win, so one has to credit the KC defense for holding them to field goals at two key moments late. They gave Pat Mahomes the ball with a chance to win the game; it took overtime, but that is what happens. I think the Travis Kelce-Taylor Swift thing is good, clean fun. <br /></p><p>Viewed from afar, the key game was the AFC Championship between Mahomes' Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens, the top-seeded team in their conference. I didn't watch it, though. </p><p>I credit the NCAA football poobahs for recognizing the need to expand beyond four for their playoff next time around, as they evolve randomly toward intelligence. Twelve teams is too many, though, unless they get rid of the odious conference championships, which will not happen. The correct number is six, or seven, if you want to push it, as the NFL successfully did this year.<br /></p><p> If they had six this year, they wouldn't have had the scandalous results in which undefeated conference champion Florida State was denied a bid--apparently for the irrelevant reason that their quarterback would be injured. Of course, the Seminoles promptly abandoned ship and were destroyed in their lesser bowl game against an angry, similarly-denied Ohio State. Oh, some SEC team won again. <i><br /></i></p><p><i> </i></p><p>*Speaking of talented stringbean rookies, Victor Wembanyama. His team (the formerly powerful San Antonio Spurs) is going nowhere this season, but one must put him on one's radar for the future. <br /></p><p>+ 6. I easily could have fitted several others in without showing any bias whatsoever. <br /></p><p> </p><p> <br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-13448944912302122162024-01-24T09:37:00.004-07:002024-01-24T11:16:02.181-07:00To Put it in Terms of D & D<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitR2N-EAXAxE2LjTtuvb8t8N6D-kLQQ65-BQf0lWaskR6WuB5tHPf9qS37iZBBElAv4JFJmRAKWSy9ZECRCrofDBA8aFdSh4YDPSYlHX7YnHrKGVFUfgKO77yt_kS-T8otdGtHpKrVdNwezL6OMZ05RfaEMJVw0yD8-MlkS2Nv85t2bUR_dw5P/s1280/20240124_085451_resized_1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1280" data-original-width="720" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitR2N-EAXAxE2LjTtuvb8t8N6D-kLQQ65-BQf0lWaskR6WuB5tHPf9qS37iZBBElAv4JFJmRAKWSy9ZECRCrofDBA8aFdSh4YDPSYlHX7YnHrKGVFUfgKO77yt_kS-T8otdGtHpKrVdNwezL6OMZ05RfaEMJVw0yD8-MlkS2Nv85t2bUR_dw5P/s320/20240124_085451_resized_1.jpg" width="180" /></a></div><br /><b><i><span style="font-size: medium;"> D</span></i></b>onald Trump is Chaotic Evil. Joe Biden is Lawful Good. It's as simple as that, really, in our Presidential election this year. Pick a side in the war. <br /><p></p><p>But is that all there is? No--there is a lot more involved. Libertarians, for example, tend to be Chaotic Neutral. Where do they go, especially those who really want to be more Good? Corporations, and most politicians, are either Lawful Neutral, or if they can be bought, Neutral Neutral. Some are even Neutral Evil (e.g., Bernie Madoff). </p><p>Nikki Haley's natural consistency is the Lawful Neutral, and her <strike>victory </strike>loss in New Hampshire shows she has some appeal to them. She has shown, however, that she has to preserve her claim to the affection of the Lawful Evil elements of her Party in order to have a chance to defeat the forces of Chaos. </p><p>There's more, as we cover all permutations. Neutral Evil is barely if ever represented in public; it's like the Witch in Hansel and Gretel, or Donald Trump, if you mistakenly go into his dressing room--just don't go there. Neutral Good may be the most numerous of all, in terms of the American electorate. Not too interested in which team, not too much involved, but their intentions are benevolent in general. Biden, logically, should win the majority of these folks, and if he can get them to vote, he will win the election. <br /></p><p><i><b>That's Fine, But What About Me? </b></i><br /></p><p>There aren't many politicians, or even public figures, who are Chaotic Good, like the character I portray in politics. Bernie Sanders and his 2016 Presidential campaign comes to mind, and I love him, but I was indulging the pragmatic, rather than maximalist, dimension of my activism too much at the time. (He wasn't going to win, and his candidacy didn't help Hilary's in her mission to Stop Trump.) Besides, I had a job. </p><p>My ideas at heart are about removing major facades of our political infrastructure for entirely new ones. These could fairly be called radical, and I wear the label proudly if I am ever asked (which I am not--it's practically a slur, since 1980 anyway). I could name a couple of musicians who exemplify the characteristics: Bono, or maybe Bruce Springsteen. John Lennon. Among politicians, Jimmy Carter, though his devout Christianity is a little too conventional for me. Nelson Mandela, of course. <br /></p><p>Now, is my philosophy rare? Not at all, Haley, after all, correctly pointed out that the majority of Americans want an option other than Biden v. Trump. That view is the diametric opposite of today's presumed general election, in other words a very Chaotic Good impulse. That's the space she's trying to claim, and I respect that. </p><p>As this episode plays out, I am looking for the secret that the Dungeon Master has hidden away. The Vorpal Weapon that will finally penetrate the Bickhead's defenses (or Dickhead's befences), or alternatively, the Ring of Power that Trump covets. <br /></p><p> <br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-26686418407845871882024-01-22T23:35:00.003-07:002024-02-27T13:18:58.119-07:00The One and Only <p><br /></p><p> <b><i>Spin Uncertainty Despite Certain Outcome</i></b><br /></p><p>That's quantum mechanics for you. Check for <a href="https://images.app.goo.gl/Fye38RGpEbThLFeb6" target="_blank">photo</a></p><p>The primary season will begin and end tomorrow. The sudden irrelevance of that democratic--even overly democratic--institution came after a rising distrust of the whole partisan system. R.I.P.?</p><p>It's a power game now, as the Trumpites have a real foothold in the government, despite the Democratic President. The stakes are huge: China, Russia, and even North Korea and Iran are licking their chops at the end of American global leadership they have reason to anticipate. </p><p>The crisis of immigration is just another case in which America--by which I mean, the Federal government of the US--shows the limits of its power. It's a result of our lawless global political framework (using the term loosely) and the collapse of populous states. There will be more of them. <br /></p><p>Within the government's limited realm, though, the executive power of the President has only risen since the days of Johnson, Nixon, and the like. These Presidents may talk about the unlimited nature of Presidential power, but not about themselves in that role. Meanwhile, each has looked to expand powers. Congress' moves to limit Presidents fall short repeatedly. We would be turning loose a monster. </p><p>It's a shame that this New Hampshire Republican primary will be likely the only meaningful decision point before we effectively go into the general election. </p><p>As least as far as the two major parties and the selection of the Presidential candidates. A lot of interest will then go onto the possibility of third-party alternatives. The only one that interests me is the one implied by Chris Christie's "failure" to endorse Nikki Haley*. I see him and Liz Cheney deciding to run and get on ballots, most importantly to get into debates (ones Trump would use that excuse to escape). I'm not sure who gets "on top", though: I'm thinking Liz, unless Chris goes for the Ozempic soon. (I apologize for that one.)</p><p>RFKJR polling way better than he has any reason to do indicates the range of opportunity that lies out there. His numbers will surely go down, and I doubt he will end up qualifying for any debates, though a Libertarian endorsement could change that. In the case of Cheney-Christie, though, a few percentage of Republicans, maybe a significant result in a couple of states, could mean the difference. </p><p><b><i>Meanwhile, the Democrats</i></b></p><p>The Biden campaign has badly handled the question of the initial primary. Now there will be undue attention to how an unauthorized write-in campaign does against a couple of throwaway candidates (Rep. Dean Phillip and the lovely Marianne Williamson). And the fact that Independents are being furiously wooed (mostly by Democrats) to come out to defeat the Party of Dickhead can only reduce Democratic turnout. </p><p>The bottom line is that a candidate never wins by refusing to participate in the election. That is a general rule, for my money one that applies even in countries with elections that are truly fixed. And Trump above all knows that first you compete and then complain about the result being fixed. </p><p>This does have a farcical recapitulation of 1968 feeling to me. Incumbent LBJ withdrew after New Hampshire write-ins that year led Clean Gene McCarthy's quixotic antiwar campaign to finish behind incumbent President Lyndon Johnson by only a small margin. The war situation is not the same, but there's simmering discontent in the Democratic tent, too. Unimaginably, there is risk. </p><p>The last third-party run to earn electoral votes electorally was in 1968, after a chaotic series of events. The person gaining those states, which came short of throwing the election into the House but could well have done so, was George Wallace of Alabama. (Ross Perot never won any, with a much higher percentage of votes.) I could see Trump losing a Republican state like Utah, Montana or North Carolina due to a strong third-party run by an establishment Republican ticket running third-party, whether the electoral votes actually accrue to the Cheney-Christie team (Would they/could they then throw their votes to Biden? Could be historic!) or, more likely, make possible a sneaky Biden win of a state or two not fully expected. </p><p>Biden has made New Hampshire competitive, I daresay. The good news is that Trump's militant anti-Islamic bigotry is making that theoretical run to take Biden on in Michigan very unlikely for him.<br /></p><p><br /></p><p>*Nikki, nikki tekel upharsin - you have been measured, Nikki, and found wanting. <br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-64365340720218843792024-01-02T15:51:00.005-07:002024-01-05T07:51:07.013-07:00Nearly at the Precipice<p><i>(Not "At the Precipice of ...Anything.")</i></p><p><i> </i></p><p><i></i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6Qzme-7Hi8C648YXCWUu1CixyG5GQVpySxXDwsfzjHiGyUZXH2RdV9xiX87G3TNVHgvY1xY-2PKyVNfrSaO5sQeDHNAJdsoe-H6X-d2kUH1hKabtWdyqcURexkuLYL83uuaJwbCXGgK3zk1YMfCAXlPnsTLt4Jb5UzmIviPbGpWFOMx84KQdi/s2560/20240104_112407.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1440" data-original-width="2560" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6Qzme-7Hi8C648YXCWUu1CixyG5GQVpySxXDwsfzjHiGyUZXH2RdV9xiX87G3TNVHgvY1xY-2PKyVNfrSaO5sQeDHNAJdsoe-H6X-d2kUH1hKabtWdyqcURexkuLYL83uuaJwbCXGgK3zk1YMfCAXlPnsTLt4Jb5UzmIviPbGpWFOMx84KQdi/s320/20240104_112407.jpg" width="320"></a></i></div><i><br> </i><p></p><p>Entering 2024, it is clear that we are there, a massive rock formation of dizzying heights and great danger. But is it below us, this precipitous drop, or is it above, the possibilities before us almost without limit if we can only....?</p><p>Here in the Roadrunner State, we can observe the birds scurrying around, trying to stay out of the heat and find safe pickings, while Wile E. Coyote lurks, threatening the worst. We are not at the cliff's edge yet; we know it's there, though. <br></p><p>The bill being designed supposedly to feed the militaries of Ukraine, of Israel, of East Asia-not-China, has been stalled by the rising border crisis and policy dispute, inflamed by the wave of migrants currently coming in. This still-unnamed compromise bill is a contradiction within itself, Fortress America with regard to the rest of the world's pressure of migration, but paying out to involve ourselves further in foreign struggles and conflicts. I hold little hope for its passage; meanwhile, what about the bills to fund the government, some of them expiring January 12? </p><p>To take these cases one by one, briefly: Ukraine must be reinforced and it will be, one way or another--remember Lend-Lease? or buying on credit? Aid to Israel has been delayed long enough and, when it comes, and it will, it should not contain lethal offensive weapons. Call that an attached string if you want; they need to break off the Netanyahu endless offensive, him included. "Don't change leader in the middle of a war?" Ask #Neville Chamberlain~: If the war is not working, change is indicated, and sooner is then better than later. </p><p>Finally, East Asia-not-China: The aid to Taiwan that must be given should not be a public matter. Aid to the Philippines, absolutely. Singapore, you know it. Even Thailand, if it's not all poured down the maw of corruption. It goes without saying, direct support to Australia, Korea and Japan. That is plenty.<br></p><p>So, President Biden declares an emergency and uses it to give Ukraine what it needs. Trump did it to start exuding his Wall. Sounds like it will be less-than-SOTA*, as our electronics seem behind Russia's hackers.</p><p><b><i>Election Cliff, Viewed from Afar</i></b></p><p>Again, because of our peculiar angles of the distant vista, it's hard to say whether it is a drop-off, or a mountain so tall its top is in the clouds. Clearly there is a Valley that must be crossed--the dangers there are both known and unknown. On the other side, it is clear the terrain is rugged, jagged rocks poking through the mist, but after that? </p><p>One simple example for our current dilemma: Is Nikki Haley a step up or a step down? In quality, we're talking about, for a potential Republican nominee. No doubt she is less evil than Donald Trump; she doesn't present the threat of immediate authoritarian rule. We can probably survive a campaign of Nikki Haley vs. Anyone (probably not Biden, in that case) without going at each others' throats en masse. </p><p>Now, though, that little bit of a chance, which required a) a surprise second place finish in Iowa; b) a narrow victory or loss vs. Trump in New Hampshire; and (most unlikely of them) c) defeating Trump in her home state of South Carolina, well, that chance seems gone forever. </p><p>There is irony in her befuddled mind before answering that challenging question; she didn't just improvise a bunch of nonsense. What went through her mind were the evasive answers she had given on the question in the past (of which the anonymous questioner was well aware) and how it had to be played for South Carolina. Yes, still today, in the state of Tim Scott, South Carolina, where she will no doubt be smeared--after she fails to take second in Iowa or win New Hampshire. Sorry, Nikki! I really wanted you to punch The Dickhead in his blowhole. . </p><p>I'm pretty sure Donald will name his VP fairly early if things go well. I'm expecting it to be Kristi Noem; he wants a pretty spokesperson while he deals with some of the consequences of his mischievous putsch. Nikki Haley should not be fooling anyone with her pretense of being a possible VP to Trump; she is not under consideration, and she especially would not be if she were successful in her primary challenges. She would disavow the notion if it didn't potentially decrease her appeal for less-than-fully-committed Trump supporters. <br></p><p><b><i>It's the Economy, And I Guess I'm Stupid</i></b><br></p><p>I certainly draw comfort from the confidence Wall Street is showing these days. Is it possible that they don't think that it will matter whether the Democrats or Republicans sweep the table of power in 2024? I can't believe that, nor do I believe that they know, better than all others, who will win. And please don't tell me they are comfortable with the chaos Trump's win would produce, or either that they know all will be fine, and he will be defeated through some means. </p><p>Instead, we are seeing the shortest of short-term bets. Next year will be good. There will be time to withdraw risk assets before the SHTF.+</p><p>I am a stubbornly optimistic person by nature, and with regard to most specific issues. I always believe there is a way--just ask me. However, I don't feel so good, even about 2024's domestic economic success forecast. It is true that we consumers spent like crazy this Christmas, so that would be a boost. Also, the Fed is done raising, that is clear. In driving terms, that means they released the pressure of their foot off the brake, which they had been applying steadily. The foot is still there, resting softly on top of the brake pedal, as the regenerative braking (we have the best, modern economists!) kicks in, providing natural slowing, storing energy for a revival, if needed.</p><p>My pessimism--or maybe I should just describe it as caution--derives from a weak global economy. So far, our economy has done well despite the unusual outbreak of war involving European nations**, but there is vulnerability in supply chains which will be exploited at some point. I see a spotty pattern of growth, with industries like cars, oil, and financials suffering, but some of the big infrastructure and military companies thriving. The tech stock monsters which powered 2023's market recovery are just about overpriced, as eager competitors will seek to knock away market share, sacrificing profitability. <br></p><p><i><b>But What About That Upside?</b></i> </p><p>There is so much potential for us if we fail to screw it up. World peace, an end to extreme poverty and inequality, enormous improvements in our quality and duration of life, exploration of the micro- and macro-universes in ways we can barely imagine. Our pace of progress in human capability has been enormous over the last 300 years and seems in many ways only to be accelerating. <br></p><p>The conversion to renewable energy is moving apace. I don't expect things like wind, hydrothermal, or the current generation of solar energy to be long-term solutions, but we won't have to go back to oil, even if its cost is reduced further through technological advancement. Practical fusion is now less than 50 years away for the first time, and other opportunities will present themselves. Energy is all around us to be harvested.</p><p>Somehow, we still seem to be able to produce enough food to feed 8 billion people, even if many live in food insecurity. This may turn out to be the Golden Age of Global Food, but developing more diverse and healthy sources of food locally will be more valuable to society, especially in dealing with the damage to ecosystems that will result from climate change continuing. </p><p>In the long run, I believe there will be a significant change in our procreation and birthing. It may become necessary, if bad chemicals in our environment endanger successful random mating of sperm and egg. Then there is the trauma of birthing--there, I said it. The rise of Caesarans , even if not needed for medical reasons, and the choice of so many young people to delay or forego having children, are clues that change is coming. I'm not expert enough to predict its form, but it will be somewhere between today's forceps and Huxley's baby factories. As for mating rituals, they are in constant evolution, but always tend toward the dysfunctional. That actually might be something that will improve with AI's development. <br></p><p>The big improvement that will be needed is more within our minds, though. The animal brain portion we have is not designed to handle well modern stresses and frustrations. I don't see those distractions decreasing, though; the difference must come from how we deal with them. In this regard, the progressing legalization of cannabis (it's not just "weed", or "dope" anymore) is a positive sign of our developing capability to adapt our minds. That underground smoldering burst into our society in the now-mythical Sixties, but it was too much, too soon. That's not true anymore; many more of us now realize the needs most or all have to take actions specifically to curate their mental health, because we are feeling it ourselves--one perversely positive result of the Covid epidemic </p><p>It starts this year, in 2024, with a definitive defeat of defeatism. Trumpism is a loser, that is clear. The challenge is to prove one's system and way of life better than the authoritarians'; going his way gives up the game. </p><p><br></p><p><b><i>Footnotes</i></b></p><p>#UK PM, May, 1937-May, 1940. I feel for his suffering descendants. (Not Wilt? I hear he has many of them.)<br></p><p>*State of the Art. Should be reduced to a FLA, if it isn't already. (TLA's are so 2010's!)</p><p>+ Shit Hits The Fan. Useful for any general global apocalypse, without hitting the censors, for now. <br></p><p>**Or extended Europe, if you will (in the FIFA view). <br></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-34628006541303035392023-12-21T22:40:00.002-07:002023-12-21T22:51:35.968-07:00Election 2024: Final Preview<p><b><i>Congressional Elections - Senate:</i></b> Those who foresee a difficult year for Democrats' chances to hold onto the majority in the Senate are correct. Not quite impossible but unlikely. This is true in most Presidential political scenarios. </p><p>As with the Presidential election, there are only a few states where the race should be close, and those are mostly Democratic-held. West Virginia's seat was already lost before Joe Manchin decided not to run for re-election, and that brings the prospective count to 50-50, before considering the tough, but winnable re-election races. The other shaky Democratic Senate vote, former Democrat Krysten Sinema's Arizona one, may end up being good news, as Sinema's running third in a three-way race, with Democratic Congressman Ruben Gallego now slightly favored to win it over Trumpist Kari Lake. .</p><p>Other holds may be more difficult. Top of the list is Jon Tester in heavily Republican Montana, though he has successfully defended it in the past and will likely face an extremist. The same challenge, only in a larger, more expensive state, faces Sherrod Brown in Ohio, but he has the same strong record in statewide elections. Tammy Baldwin has done well in the past in Wisconsin, but the state's electoral balance is narrow--she might be in danger if the Republicans nominate someone even a bit more moderate than their other senator, Ron Johnson. Michigan's seat is now a toss-up since Debbie Stabenow decided not to run again, and it looks to be a battleground in the Presidential race, once again. Jacky Rosen needs to defend her seat in Nevada, and that state's votes are always close. </p><p>There are 10 or more seats on each side that seem very secure: the likes of NY ,CA, WA, and the New England states for the Democrats; and several Midwest and South states for the Republicans. There are several states in between--clear favorites but not slam-dunk landslides. I'd include in that set PA, where Bob Casey should run well ahead of the Democratic Presidential nominee; a few Midwest states with strong Republican majorities but have challengers who could surprise (MO, NE, ND); Florida and Texas, which have controversial and unpopular Republican incumbents (Rick Scott and Ted Cruz) but definite Republican leans; and New Mexico and Maine, with reasonably strong Democratic tendencies and popular incumbents. </p><p>I should mention New Jersey's Democratic Senator, Bob Menendez, who is facing a second criminal charge (along with his wife), one that looks devastatingly bad based on large chunks of presumed bribe money found in his house. One more stress-inducer for Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic Senate campaign head. He's certainly hoping Menendez will be successfully primaried, but it may not happen that way (dare I suggest Jersey folks have a high tolerance for corruption, especially for people of their party?), which would make the general election very risky. If he's primaried out, it becomes a likely Democratic hold. <br /></p><p>Incumbent Senators running for re-election do tend to win in most general elections, but Presidential landslides or very unpopular administrations can upset this. We should not exclude that possibility, either that the Democrats hold on to their majority or even grow it if Trump fades, or that a big Republican night takes them to 53-55 seats from their current 49. </p><p><b><i>Congressional Elections: House</i></b> - Despite the parties' efforts to make the House seats they hold as safe as possible, there are many unknowns about the House of Representatives and who may control it after 2024. One manifestation of this is the great number of Representatives choosing not to run again, though that does not in itself indicate the winner, as they are numerous from both parties. The majority of those seats thus opening up are deemed safe within party, but those are the type that could flip if the Presidential race tilts heavily to one side.</p><p>Meanwhile, there are a couple dozen that are held by Representatives from the party that was a minority in the last Presidential election (as projected with new Congressional boundaries). This may prove to be an indicator of seats that will change hands; if so, this favors the Democrats to gain the (two? four? five?) seats they will need to gain on Election Day to gain control of the House. \</p><p>Redistricting--in this case, also known as gerrymandering--could play a role in how control of the House plays out, and at this point provides additional uncertainty. The Supreme Court has given state legislatures somewhat of a free hand in rejiggering Congressional district boundaries for partisan advantage, and they are taking advantage of it, in North Carolina (to favor Republicans) and New York (to favor Democrats). There are also a couple of states in the deep South where the courts have ruled that district boundaries must be changed to create one or two more majority-nonwhite districts. The state legislatures are not aligned with that order, so far. As the deadlines approach, these issues will get resolved in the courts (basically, any change result will be challenged by the side perceiving disadvantage); some seats will change hands ultimately as a result, but again, that might net out to little to no advantage to either side vs. 2022. <br /></p><p><b><i>Congressional Control: </i></b> At this distance of 50,000 feet and 10+ months, the most likely outcome, barring the scenarios where Trump or Biden fades or drops out, is an unusual one, with control of both Houses changing, the Senate to Republicans and the House to Democrats. </p><p>The former is a probability based on the numbers: the Democrats have many seats at risk, and the Republicans few to none. The Democrats will likely save many or most of them, but after losing Manchin's seat, they can afford no net loss. </p><p>As for the House, I expect there will be strong turnout in 2024, which will tend to favor Democrats. I expect in particular a gain of five seats or so just from NY and CA. That would be enough, but if the Democrats repeat the clear Presidential popular vote majority they had in 2020 (7 million votes), gerrymandering won't be enough to stop it, and the margin could be larger than the 222-213 result we saw in the last two Congressional elections. </p><p><b><i>State Legislatures/Gubernatorial Races</i></b> - I won't go too deep, but it's clear these electoral contests are only becoming more important in the general partisan context, particular as it relates to setting rules for Federal elections. So more money than ever will be spent. </p><p>A few general comments at this point: Somewhat surprisingly, gubernatorial elections don't necessarily follow the pattern of Federal elections, especially not the Presidential outcomes. There are plenty of blue state Republican governors, some red state Democratic ones, and swing state governors of both types. And even independents can win statewide. Gaps between contested governors' races vs. Presidential ones can be 10-15 percent. So those need to be viewed independently of the Presidential contest, the results of which are almost baked in for most states. </p><p>There will be a serious effort by the Democratic party to try to take control of more state legislatures in 2024. The party's campaign committee created specifically to fund strategic races has low recognition and is chronically underfunded, but this year I think legislative races will get more assistance from above. This will correct a glaring political strategic error the Democratic party has been committing since Obama's time. </p><p>State races may produce an upstream effect on the Presidential race through special turnout efforts. Major voter registration efforts can make a difference. Ballot measures are another difference-maker; Democrats will seek to have abortion and/or cannabis initiatives when possible, as those have tended to help them. Mostly, though, these races turn on local issues like taxes, the local economic conditions and whether the government has been responsive to problems in that area, corruption and other scandals, health care and housing. <br /></p><p><b><i>Updates/Corrections on the Previous Scenario-Based Posts - </i></b>Three months have passed since the first one of those. Apart from that, not so much changed, though I see a couple of things I must correct. </p><p><i><a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-trump-collapse-scenario.html">Trump Collapse Scenario</a> - </i>Still looks quite possible to me. The main thing we should look at is the "Standard Trump Trial Outcomes": Trump's team has come up with a couple of delay tactics in the big trial, USA v. Dickhead (DC Court), and those ones may work, if the Supreme Court plays along. The one about immunity is doomed to fail, while the 14th Amendment case occasioned by Colorado will also fail, but may take longer to decide, as the arguments are complex. There is also a separate case being reviewed questioning whether the obstruction charge (used against very many Jan. 6 rioters) is valid to use in this case--seems also doubtful. However, the March 4 trial date Jack Smith really wanted probably will end up back a month or two, but SCOTUS could potentially kill the whole deal. </p><p>Also, I misread the 14th Amendment clause: it doesn't say what is required to be applied to diqualify; the two-thirds Senate vote is actually what is required to remove the disqualification. So what is required is very much under discussion, but I still see it only viable after conviction, though I would point out the language relates to serving in the office, not running for it! So, it could be applied after the election, before the inauguration, if SCOTUS had the courage. That would make <i>Bush v. Gore</i> a small-time decision. </p><p><a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/09/biden-weakened.html">Biden Weakened</a> - I would say the new charges against Hunter Biden hurt him but not his electoral chances. The threat of impeachment doesn't do either; it does support the "do-nothing" argument against the House which Democrats will want to use, whether impeachment actually happens (still no effect; it would be laughed at in the Senate) or doesn't. </p><p><b><a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-crisis-scenario.html">The Crisis Scenario</a></b> - In foreign affairs, a hell of a lot has happened in the last three months, between October 7 and Israel's response, trouble funding Ukraine's war with Russia, the border crisis driven by large crowds of migrants from all over, turmoil in control of the House and the new outrageous Christian nationalist Speaker holding the office second in succession, and so on. I really don't see any of them having a significant effect on the Presidential or state races, except possibly some weakening for Democrats in Michigan. In foreign policy, it would take an actual US war involvement, not a proxy one, and the Israel-Hamas War better be over well before November, or we won't be so friendly with Israel anymore. Immigration will always be an issue, and it seems to work against Democrats at present, but claims our border has been massively overrun are made only by liars. <br /></p><p>The real crisis is more likely to be internal. It could still be stirred up in a serious way by extremists or foreign plants, too. One example: The 14th Amendment thing could cause major riots if Trump were successfully barred from the ballot in one or more states.</p><p><b><i><a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/09/trump-out.html">Trump Out</a></i></b> - I foresaw the possibility of the Nikki Haley stock rising. It looks likely to flower in New Hampshire, with a close outcome, but may wither in South Carolina and almost surely will do so on Super Tuesday. So let's just hope for one of the other personal mishaps for him that I mentioned. </p><p><a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/09/biden-out.html" target="_blank">Biden Out</a> and <a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/09/both-out-b-t.html">Both Out (B&T)</a> Out - Nothing has changed. Biden made a comment which showed that the main reason he's in it is to stop Trump, so if for some reason Trump definitively leaves the race, Biden might do so, if it's feasible, and maybe if it's not. </p><p><b><i><a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/10/status-quo-ante-24-part-1.html" target="_blank">Status Quo Election--Part I, the Presidential Race</a></i></b> - I don't see much of anything having changed, though that post is considerably more recent. Polling continues to vibrate in a fairly narrow range nationwide, and there is little evidence either the public or the Biden campaign has engaged. Subgroup tracking doesn't convince me of much of anything right now. There is a lot of work to do, huge amounts of money will be spent to do it, and it will move few voters. But maybe not so many need to be moved. In this scenario Trump will provide rich and frequent evidence of his perfect lack of qualification, in a variety of venues, and most of it will not stick to him long. </p><p>One correction: New Hampshire does not have a Senate race in '24. It will be close, regardless, but that might help the Republicans' chances to win that state slightly, as there will not be a Democratic Senator running for re-election down-ticket. Again, though, that will only matter in an extremely close Electoral College outcome, essentially meaning a 50-50 split of the six larger swing states (PA, GA, AZ, NC, MI, and WI). <br /></p><p><br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-24460679680297821802023-10-18T22:16:00.001-06:002023-10-19T14:57:57.041-06:00After the Bloodletting<p>I suspect Biden had a bold proposal to bring to the Middle East, but before he got there, the hospital explosion and the reaction to it ruined all chances. I can imagine what it was--something like a revitalized Palestine in the West Bank, with major humanitarian involvement on an international basis for Gaza. As it was, he wasn't even able to meet with Palestine Authority head Mohammed Abbas. It would have been great. I'm sure that Israeli PM Netanyahu (I guess he still is--we'll see soon) made it clear to Biden that it's not time yet. </p><p>It is not too soon, though, for a pause in the attacks for a release of hostages. The airstrikes are for the targets they know about, and I imagine they will run out of those soon. As for the ones they don't know about, they will need to occupy Gaza City and go house-to-house. They will do so, even if the hostages are released. I'd say a three-day pause would be enough. </p><p>My thinking, when I heard of the hospital explosion and fire, was that, however the initial explosion came, there may have been something (weapons, explosives) underground that had triggered the huge fire that killed so many. It would be just like Hamas to figure that under a hospital would be the very last place Israel would attack. Maybe that's just rank speculation, and I don't encourage the thought, but I'm not convinced otherwise. </p><p>Israel is right now not in a position to do anything more than apply its full effort to defeat of Hamas and release of hostages. Netanyahu had a weak Cabinet before October 7, built around building more Israeli settlements in the West Bank and defeating the criminal case against Netanyahu. That phase is over; the military technocrats who headed Israel's government before Netanyahu's latest capture of the Knesset have returned and are focused on that single priority. Netanyahu very much deserves to lose his job, but he can stay for a long time unless his own party deserts him. (Part of it has deserted in the past, but then Likud maintained its number of seats anyway. Before October 7.)</p><p>We must prevent that the paranoid response takes over in the time after the Hamas War. I think the security assistance Israel will need will be more of a direct defense and diplomatic support to Israel than through the nascent Israel-Saudi accord Biden was trying to facilitate. US support provides Israel the means to deal with Hamas, and with broken Gaza that they will be breaking once again. </p><p>No doubt Israel knows what Gaza needs--pretty much everything, but with less crowding. It would make sense to settle some peaceful Gazans in the West Bank alongside Palestinians living there already. It is important not to create new refugee floods, as happened in Syria when we stayed out. That's a point Egypt has been making quite clearly. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-85866834109440882102023-10-15T09:47:00.002-06:002023-10-18T20:25:09.406-06:00Status Quo Ante '24: Part 1<p>Having reviewed in more depth all the alternative scenarios, we now come back to the one summarizing the current reality, the Null Scenario. Biden and Trump each running to the end of the line, gaining their nominations, and on to the general election, with neither visibly yielding from roughly a half-share of the electorate in a primarily two-man race. Trump goes through the brutal process described in the <a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-trump-collapse-scenario.html" target="_blank">Standard Trump Trial Outcome</a>s, but it's not enough to drive him from the race, or even noticeably change his support level. So, there we are then--what happens? </p><p>In this post we go over the BFD, the Presidential race; in a subsequent one, Congress and some state and local electoral battles. </p><p>At the strategic level, a national election is about a single, dominant issue that drives the dialogue. Normally, in a contest between an incumbent and a challenger, it's a barometer, a measure of the satisfaction level (or the pain level, if you prefer) with the performance of the incumbent's administration. The Republicans would like it to be just that, and have confidence that the approval levels and "right track/wrong track" seen at present will continue to be unfavorable to Biden. </p><p>There is one big difference, though--the challenger is a former President, with therefore a huge record of statements and actions that are not easily forgotten by the electorate. Biden's strategy is to make Trump that dominant issue, and he has the enthusiastic assist from the former President himself. Repeatedly. </p><p style="text-align: left;"></p>To put his tone on an elevated level, at least here at the outset, Biden seeks to make the issue of the election the Defense of Democracy. There are three reasons why that strategy will not take hold as much as it should: <div><blockquote><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>One is that half of the people in the US don't even know or care what the nature of our (representative) democracy is; </li><li>The second is that, of those who do know, many recognize primarily a lack of democratic quality in many of our processes to elect and govern; and</li><li>The third is that many others of us who do know about our system are sworn opponents of Biden's continued administration (or, as they might put it, "Obama/Biden's continued administration"). </li></ul></blockquote></div><div> I think it's a worthwhile message for this early stage, but a bit confusing. <p></p><p>I would think that ultimately, the Democratic theme will be something along the lines of "Is That Really Who We Are?", referring to the man who would be the symbol of our nation to the world and of this era to history, if Donald Trump were, once again, re-elected President. </p><p>As the fictional Cmdr. Scott said on Star Trek, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The modern-day admonition to Americans might read: "Fool us once, January 6; fool us twice, WW3". </p><p><b><i>About Presidential Debates</i></b></p><p>I considered leaving this section blank, to indicate my expectation that there will be no general election debates between Biden and Trump, but I suppose I should explain why I think that will be the case. </p><p>Neither Biden or Trump will want a debate before a live, impartial audience. Trump generally does not like to perform before any audience that isn't stuffed with his fans; Biden might be willing to show, despite appearing so old and all, but not with Trump. He has no respect for him, and might be concerned he wouldn't be able to keep his temper, or his heartrate, under control.*</p><p>There would be strong pressure, then, for some kind of meeting of the two, possibly in studio, or before a handpicked, limited audience. Maybe better with two adjacent soundproof booths, and studio mikes and earpieces. Zoom would not be a good idea, frankly, but could be a last resort, if there were a way to do it without granting any advantages. That would be the sticking point of any kind of debate negotiations, which are likely to happen unless both dismiss the idea from the start. I think they would both like to taunt the other about it, though. </p><p>If there were just one debate, or two, it would be so superficial, with all the Trump diversions and interruptions that he could manage. There might be some interesting variances in the views of foreign affairs that are interesting but not important in many voters' choices. And that, and a lot of Trump's whining, would be that. </p><p><b><i>Tactics and Forecasting </i></b></p><p><i>Money</i>--First, there will be a lot of it. The spending of one side will drive the spending of the other, both in quantity and directionally. So, keep that in mind as you contribute (see below). </p><p>There is also a lot at stake, though, and pockets are going to have to be deep. The electronic deluge of election requests are expanding in depth, frequency, and displacement, even at this early stage. I have a couple of consumer-friendly suggestions for those receiving election advertisements below. </p><p><i>The so-called Popular Vot</i>e--That is what would decide our Presidential election, if we really wanted to have our collective preference decide both our head of state and executive head of government (probably not an altogether good idea). It's not happening anytime soon--maybe if Texas or Florida flips. </p><p>We tend to think of the Democrats having a built-in edge in the raw national vote total, relative to Electoral College outcomes, due to the "excess votes" in states like New York and California. This perception is what prevents popular vote deciding our election. It's not really true; if Democrats were to abandon, for example, all serious efforts in Florida (something defensible given the failure to provide credible statewide candidates),for example, that might throw a million or two "excess votes" to the Republicans. Something like that happens in those two large Democratic states, as Republicans run but are not expected to win, and have been outgunned since 2000. Trump's fortunate 2016 found the cracks in the Democratic Electoral College wall. </p><p><i>Other Issues for the Campaign: </i>The fact of the Republican House's complete inability to legislate is one that works for partisan Democrats, but it doesn't bother Republican voters much if they are seeking less Federal government. At this point, Independents don't seem inclined to penalize one party more than the other for this ineffectiveness. Abortion politics were big in 2022 and largely favored Democrats, but I don't see it working at an overall level; the follow-up condition of reproductive healthcare by state is all over the place--so its effect will be varied. Taxes, the deficit and debt level, and defending government benefits, will come up, but they aren't going to be important in moving independents within the current static legislative environment. The economy could be, if inflation ignites again, or a deep recession develops, but that would be more the <a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/09/biden-weakened.html" target="_blank">Biden Weakened scenario</a> than this one. </p><p><b><i>The Big Chunks, and Getting "Granular" </i></b></p><p>The starting point to identify the winner in a closely-contested election, Trump vs. Adversary (as in 2016, 2020) is: Who wins Pennsylvania? If the Democrats can hold Pennsylvania, they have a clear advantage in the drive to reach 270. If they can't win, that means that Biden's margins in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, along with some edge in their suburbs, are not sufficient to overcome deficits in the rural and small towns in the rest of the state. That would bode badly for the other swing states, each with its own mix of composite populations. </p><p>Electorally, Pennsylvania is no picnic for the Democrats. It's very close, but more often the Democrats can win Pennsylvania in statewide elections, unlike, say neighboring Ohio, where the Republicans usually win, or New York, where the Democrats always do: Those states are also mixed, like PA, but not so balanced at that broad level. Pennsylvania will have the re-election of popular Senator Bob Casey in 2024, the state government is headed by a popular governor, Josh Shapiro, and there will be other battles driving turnout there. Biden has always claimed Pennsylvania roots, from one of those smaller cities (Scranton) that are themselves swing areas within the critical swing state. </p><p>Pennsylvania is so important because it is the largest of the swing states, with 19 Electoral Votes. Without it, Trump practically has to run the tossup states; with it, he only needs to split them with Biden to get into a photo-finish. Current polling in PA (from Quinnipiac University's <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3879" target="_blank">poll</a>) confirms that, this far out, Biden and Trump are in a dead heat, well within the margin of error. Self-declared independents prefer Trump by almost 10 points, and they are focused on the economy. </p><p>The next most critical states are a threesome, all with long-term demographic trends favoring Democrats. They are at different stages in their gradual shift over the fulcrum toward the left. Arizona and Georgia have moved in parallel in Federal elections to elect Democratic Senators and narrowly vote Democratic in the Presidential as well (with contrary state government results), while North Carolina has remained just out of reach (except in 2008), though the state government elections show Democrats can win there. </p><p>Democrats' Electoral College majorities before Arizona and Georgia became winnable depended on consistently winning the North Central states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, generally by very narrow, vulnerable margins. Michigan and Wisconsin tipped over to the Republicans in 2016; they have tipped back since, margins in the urban and suburban areas overcoming furious right-wing resistance from the states' rural areas. Michigan should lean Democratic if the economy holds, but Wisconsin's furious struggle for partisan dominance is continuing on a number of fronts, both legal and extralegal. Minnesota was very close in 2016, but recent elections indicate it now has a decent-sized Democratic lean. </p><p>The other tossup entities are not decisive in themselves but could make a difference in an extremely close outcome. Nevada (6 Electoral Votes) is always close but has broken to the Democrats in Presidential elections; it will be a focus also due to an expected close Senate race. Of New Hampshire (4 EV) we can say the same. Then there are the two individual EV in Maine and Nebraska that tend to go against the statewide result, and their states uniquely allow Congressional district-level votes. (I <a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/04/modest-proposal.html" target="_blank">wanted</a> to get New Mexico some attention through legislation following this approach, though I'm not getting any traction.) </p><p><b><i>Getting to 270</i></b></p><p>The 2024 election will be the first with revised Electoral College numbers after the 2020 Census, changing the calculations slightly in the Republicans' direction. Biden wins if he can get 270 or more Electoral Votes; if not, he will lose--Trump wins in the House of Representatives if no one gets to 270. That would presumably be due to some third-party Electoral Votes, something that hasn't happened since 1968. Democrats start with a good lead among states considered "Safe" due to predictably large margins in the large states of California, New York, and Illinois, while the Safe states for Republican are smaller ones; they do close the gap, though, when one adds to their number their "Likely" big states--Ohio, Florida, and Texas. </p><p>In a closely-contested Biden vs. Trump contest, I would give a slight edge to the Democrats in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. This would give Democrats an edge of 259-218 (review that map <a href=" https://www.270towin.com/map-images/YWZy1" target="_blank">here</a>), with the following ones seemingly Toss-ups at this distance: Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, and the two single EV of Maine and Nebraska. In that situation, any one of the first three states I named would get the Democrats over the line, while winning just Wisconsin of those would leave them one tantalizing vote short (holding the Maine seat, winning the Nebraska one, or Nevada would then be enough). </p><p>To summarize, Democrats have a narrow advantage, even in a close race. As long as they win Pennsylvania. </p><p><b><i>Consumer-Friendly Advice on Political Contributions</i></b></p><p>The 2024 election is guaranteed to be the most expensive in history; billions of dollars will be expended to try to move small numbers of people to vote, and to vote in the direction sought by the spenders. Engaged citizens would seek to add their monetary contributions to provide more leverage to outcomes than just voting locally, but we should recognize that ours will pale in comparison to the huge sums being laid down in unlimited Political Action Committees, unless our efforts are strategically or tactically accurate. Here are a few thoughts: </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>There are only a couple dozen House seats constructed to be competitive, out of 435; the other 400+ were constructed to be anti-competitive. Give no more than a token contribution to your local Representative, or to its challenger, if you prefer, unless yours is one of that handful. </li><li>The same is true of the Senate races, except for a few--we will identify both groups in a susbsequent post. </li><li>When they say your contribution will be matched, triple-matched, or 9-to-1 matched (I saw that on a Trump email), it's tempting to think that its effect will be magnified. It's the opposite: the matching money is already pledged. </li><li>Late-campaign contributions will be burnt on TV ads. In this early stage, one would hope that money will go toward building an effective campaign organization at the grassroots level. Watch out, though, for appeals from campaigns that face hopeless odds, or to defeat primary opponents. </li><li>Finally, every mid-month or end-month there will be the appeals to meet certain targets by the campaigns' deadlines, especially the official ones for reporting contributions. Ignore all these; campaigns' bragging about the level of donations will only stimulate their opponents to do more. If anything, the emails after the deadlines revealing the shortfalls (there's a lot of those, too) might be more appropriate targets for consideration. </li></ul><p></p></div>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-90554653100988360632023-09-30T17:19:00.011-06:002023-10-18T20:57:07.812-06:00 Both Out (B. & T.) <p>The American people have indicated clearly, albeit only through polling, that a majority would prefer to see the leading candidate of each major party out of the race. That would open up the 2024 contest to a new generation of leaders and possibly some new ways of thinking, which is admittedly quite attractive. The question is how that could ever come about. </p><p>Almost certainly it would have to start with former President Trump leaving the race, though that could be for a variety of reasons. In the other direction, I don't think President Biden dropping out would be any kind of impediment to Trump's running or a reason to quit--he has a desire to get even that won't be satisfied in any way other than using the Federal government to get his revenge, and the targets of his vengeance are so many that removing one from his hit list would not change that. </p><p>The key thing would be to get Trump out of the way soon. Then Biden would have some opportunity to reflect and think that signal idea of the moment, "Why not someone else?" Once he announced his withdrawal under those circumstances, events would take their own chaotic course. If things happen so quickly that Biden could withdraw before the primaries, or if he announced his intention to complete his term and then step aside, a nominee could be determined by the convention delegates chosen, even if after the primaries. </p><p>Biden could cite health reasons, and no one would really argue the point. He could say he needed to help his son Hunter with his escalating legal problems, though I don't think he would. He could say he's fed up with Washington, dealing with Republican dinosaurs, even trying to please an ungrateful public, and again all those are plausible, but not his style. His would be more to say that he is relieved and ready to retire. </p><p>I do think he would want to get out if the menace of Trump's return is lifted from us, but it would have to be in a form that is definitive, with regard to the 2024 election. As I said in a <a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/09/trump-out.html" target="_blank">previous post</a>, there are many ways that can be accomplished. </p><p>How to get him out, though? I do believe the compounding effect of all these indictments and trials (and, presumably, some eventual convictions) will make him next to unelectable in November, 2024. ("next to" being the key words, when the Electoral College is involved) The key to turning things around is for Republicans to see this, just in time. Nikki Haley has a chance to brand him as a loser we don't want around anymore; if she fails to do this, she deserves the suffering we will all experience. </p><p>Another possibility is that he fatally shows weakness. I'm thinking physical weakness, but it could also be brazen cowardice. Macho men all across the nation of all ethnicities see him as a kindred spirit, fallible but "strong". Something like the visual equivalent of "pudding fingers" for Ron DeSantis could reveal the insecure weakling he is inside for all to see. </p><p>Or he could just die. As discussed, sooner better than later. </p><p><b><i>A 2024 Presidential Election without the Two Headliners</i></b></p><p>It would certainly be interesting. The 2020 election focused on the binary choice in a narrow Presidential race, and we will discuss that scenario repeating itself in our next posts. Without those two running, I would expect both that turnout would decrease and that third- and fourth-party percentages would rise (thinking RFKJR as Libertarian and Cornel Wes for the rejuvenated Greens). </p><p>The Republicans would have more of a crisis, I think: post-Trumpism could take various forms. Besides Haley and Ron DeSantis, there might be significant new contenders entering the race late. I'm thinking specifically of Virginia's Governor Glenn Youngkin, who will be termed out in 2025, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some reptiles from Congress (there are none in the race now!), such as Ted Cruz (to raise his profile before having to defend his Senate seat when he finds out how few Republicans like him) or Josh Hawley. Depending on the state and the timing of Trump's descent (a hole in the floor taking the place of the escalator), such new entrants might be too late for some primaries, but in a dynamic environment such as would develop in '24 under these circumstances, a late move could be decisive--for example, if there are a lot of delegates committed to a no-longer-active Trump candidacy who would then be up for grabs. </p><p>As for the Democrats, if Biden dropped out the party might move quickly behind Kamala Harris, particularly if time were short (or the convention already past). If there were time to mobilize a candidacy, though, she would be challenged--probably from the moderate wing, and one would expect that Gavin Newsom's loyalty to the Biden-Harris ticket (very laudable!) would end abruptly. I don't see Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries throwing his hat in, as he is looking forward to a likely Speakership in the next Congress, or the one after. As I suggested before, it might be the time that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez goes national for the first time, but only if she's confident that it would not be the last, regardless of outcome. And why not, given the example of Joe Biden? </p><p>The favorite in a general election under these circumstances would be the one whose nomination came about with the least internal damage to the party--the least chaotic, the least cantankerous. There is big money waiting for the nominees, and they will fight hard to get at it. The Democrats are historically more known for fighting with each other, but lately it has been quite different with the Republican party. Once Trump is out of the way, though, you have to think they will come to a new, more authoritarian consensus (we don't call it "populist"), but one with some respect for laws now. Maybe not recovering that famous certitude and consistency in talking points as quickly as November, 2024, though. As for Congress, the starting point would still be the struggle to hold the Senate for the Democrats and the similar struggle of the Republicans to hold the House, dictated by the numbers. This could change, however, if a landslide develops due to one party's mismanagement of this opportunity/crisis. </p><p>I saw a panel discussing the Republican race yesterday: the respected Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson suggested the chances Trump could be defeated were 1 in 10. I'd buy that estimate and add 5% that Trump involuntarily leaves. Out of that 15%, I'd say at least half of the probability would then have Biden finding a reason to step aside. </p><p>So this is a low-probability scenario, but undoubtedly the most fun. Maybe the best, all-around for the US. </p><p><br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-76425001845763910892023-09-20T09:22:00.004-06:002023-10-13T14:42:45.785-06:00Biden Out<p> I will grant that President Biden does not seem to be running a strong re-election campaign at this "late" date a mere 13 1/2 months before the election. There's plenty of time, really. </p><p>There may be a question of whether Biden has plenty of time, though, if one is speaking of 5+ more years in the most difficult job in the world at age whatever. It's a legitimate question, though the answer to that is clearly not to elect an unhealthy guy 3 years younger with illegitimate motives and behavior, so I don't see it resonating in the standard<i> B v. T </i>scenarios. Biden has some difficulty with public speech, which I can <a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2022/05/my-joe-biden-story.html" target="_blank">confirm</a> was present 50 years ago, but those who listen know that he can think and communicate clearly. He walks like an 80-year-old in good health, nothing unusual these days. </p><p>The noise from Democrats about his voluntarily withdrawing from the political battlefield, while Trump is still on it, is just that. It's not their decision; someone would have to convince Biden that they would be better at defeating The Former Guy. To put it on the other foot, like, if Nikki Haley showed Trump data that meant she would have a better chance than he to defeat Biden, then Trump would withdraw. Right. /s</p><p>So, I'm really just talking about the various ways Biden would involuntarily leave the race. </p><p>One that we cannot simply ignore is the possibility of a scandal affecting Joe Biden. Personally, not his family members. Biden is certainly a wealthy man, but he should be after 40-some years of public service at the highest levels and a restrained lifestyle. (If you don't pay honest public servants adequately, you should expect corruption.) There is the possibility of Biden choosing not to run for re-election and citing Hunter Biden's looming conviction(s) and possible jail time; my response would be that there would have been some other reason even in that case. I do not think it would be determinant of his decision, as he says it was with his other son Beau's cancer illness in relation to choosing not to run for President in 2016 as the sitting VP to Obama.*</p><p>So, we are really down to the sickness, death, and 25th Amendment part of the discussion. It's something real enough, but it is also a quantifiable, manageable risk. It's really only a risk for the campaign and the election, as the Constitution is now very clear about succession. But what happens, and when in the campaign it could happen, are critical to consider: who here remembers Sen. Eagleton as VP candidate for George McGovern in 1972 until he dropped out, <i>after </i>the convention? It was a political mess and hampered that quixotic campaign, but it is something that Biden can avoid. ++ </p><p>Here is how I would approach it, if I were in the position that Joe Biden finds himself in: He should make out a Political Will. He should then give it privately to three largely disinterested senior officials--I would recommend Congressional Leaders Schumer and Jeffries, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In it, he should indicate what his preferred successor ticket would be should something happen to him. It could be Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg, Kamala and throw it open for VP, just throw it open with some process indicated, whatever he wants. Though it could be updated, the Will would remain secret, unless or until Biden was no longer able to serve. Then it should become public. In the meantime, those three would remain silent on the party leadership succession question but supporting Biden at all times, just as they do today. </p><p> Seems suspicious? /s</p><p>The thing is, Biden is the elected representative of the people of the US until he's not. Anyone who challenges that, under the circumstances, is basically an enabler of seditious conspiracy. So there's a pretty clear line. Even most Republican office-holders will agree to that by now. 25th Amendment challenges to his authority are going to remain off-limits until there's extreme visible evidence. So, his point of view should matter; he's shown decent judgement, having been a better President than most (see below). </p><p>If Biden were out, though, with Trump in the race, there would be madness without that Will. </p><p>In the case after the nomination (assuming the Biden-Harris ticket is confirmed in the primary), Kamala would have to take the reins, though she would very likely be challenged. In any case, she would have to announce, forthwith, her VP choice, and there would have to be some ratification process. She would have no more than a matter of days. Then, the campaign would have to advise each state how to modify the ticket on the ballot, if indeed they can change it. Timing would be mission-critical, especially if the ensuing race is close. </p><p>The case of his dropping out before the nomination is the one Democrats and Republican alike drool about, though I see the chances from now until then, considering all possibilities, to be less than 3%. Some kind of late train wreck, a 1968 scenario, as in RFK getting assassinated in California in June, just after the primary that was going to put him ahead. Again: The Will is the way to avoid that. (Someone please tell them. :)</p><p>I saw a puff piece (no credits) with five pictures for that scenario: Harris, CA Gov. Gavin Newsom, MI Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Transportation Secretary Buttigieg, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I think all those choices are accurate, even Ocasio-Cortez, who would have no chance to win, except in something like a five-sided race, but might well be the Bernie wing's choice. But that's before the primaries, so even less likely. It is however likely that the Democratic race could start shaping up that way, even soon after the 2024 election, as an initial framing of something that will go on for years. Biden may leave the White House sooner, or later, but it's certain that, as a duck, he will be lame by late 2025. Not the right kind of duck, for the world. </p><p>Would Trump walk all over the replacement nominee, no matter whom? I say no, not any of them.+++ These are smart people, capable, calm, rational, and they have plenty of warning, so they will be careful around him. He's still not likely to win, though a third-party could easily come into play here and disrupt the scenario, especially if the Democratic replacement process is just a disaster. </p><p> The Will, again. Maybe they have one--we wouldn't know, would we?</p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p><b><i>Biden as President</i></b>, <i>in 300 Words or Less</i></p><p></p><blockquote><p>In his first 30 months as President, Biden has governed, or tried to govern,
in line with his supporters in the 2020 election, a Democratic voting base
that's somewhat left of center. Faced with the narrowest of Congressional
margins, he accomplished legislation to move us in directions needed for our
future (for infrastructure and renewable fuels). As a longtime insider,
he was able to get done more with such a fragmented legislature than
Obama. Still, he hasn't gotten either the current or previous Congress to
move on immigration, or to do enough to secure Federal elections. </p><p><o:p></o:p></p><p>In many public addresses and executive actions, Biden tried to protect us
from the damage his opponents would cause us, often designed to handicap or
cripple the capabilities of his administration. (I'm thinking of the
Supreme Court, Republican Congress, a former President.)<o:p></o:p></p><p> He has performed well on foreign policy, a strong point, doing his
best to re-establish ties with allies skeptical after Trump. The contrast in
behavior with Trump is stark: Biden has acted with solemnity when he needed,
silence when needed, and he stood up to Putin in a way that mattered. <o:p></o:p></p><p>With regard to China, he has lowered the temperature despite many
challenges; with Russia, he ended Trump’s appeasement when it became necessary
with the Ukraine invasion; with India and some other Asian nations more than
willing to let us stand with them, he has located and brought them in.<o:p></o:p></p><p>On the military side, he didn't get good execution when he decided to go
forward with Trump's deal with the Taliban.** After that, no major direct
US military engagements. We seem
appropriately ready, involved, but at peace. Even that is
criticized. <o:p></o:p></p><p>As for economics, while Presidents can’t do so much, Biden, like Obama,
inherited a sick economy and got it back on its feet. </p></blockquote><p><o:p></o:p></p><p>
</p><p>Yeah, gas prices suck--too bad. </p><p> (That last sentence not being part of the 300)<o:p></o:p></p><p><br /></p><p><i>Footnotes</i></p><p>*Utah Senator Mitt Romney and Biden would have faced off in a better 2016 election, but Romney had expended his political capital fruitlessly challenging the incumbent President Obama, while Biden opted out, leaving the door open for Hillary Clinton. Romney would have provided a much better opponent to Trump in the Republican primaries than John Kasich and Ted Cruz did. Alas!</p><p>**If Trump were really such a good deal-maker, he would have traded better with the Talib: Make Bagram Air Force Base US territory (like Guantanamo, really) and you get the rest of the country for your sick policies. That would have provided a real deterrent and made for a better withdrawal. </p><p>++ The reference I suggest is <i>Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972</i>, by Hunter S. Thompson. If you haven't read it, it's a good ride. </p><p>+++OK, maybe AOC, who would probably scream at him, he's so awful. That would hurt her, not him, as the standards are different for Democrats and their supporters. As I see on comment threads, IOKIYAR. (It's OK if You Are Republican.) </p><p><br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-11965249723362360502023-09-14T23:43:00.003-06:002023-09-14T23:43:40.122-06:00Trump Out<p> It is delicious to consider the ways Donald Trump might leave the 2024 race. The idea I treasured was that the weight of multiple criminal trials, augmented by an endless stream of civil suits, would cause him to just pack it in. The toll that breaks him could be psychological, physical, financial, economical, or just pure exhaustion from anger and anxiety. While it does seem like this series of judicial setbacks and indictments is taking a toll on his psyche, it's not looking like that will drive him to quit. </p><p>There is the possibility of severe illness, or death. That would do the trick to get him out. </p><p>There are other possibilities that could possibly deter him or even prevent him from completing his primary campaign and/or winning the nomination. He could be jailed, more likely for contempt of court or defying a gag order than for a sentence after conviction, as I don't think any case is likely to reach that stage, pre-November; however, he could even continue his campaign from behind bars--we should be certain he would make the most of it, performance-wise. There is the thing about the 14th Amendment, which states people who participate in insurrection should be barred from Federal office. OK, he did it, but who gets to decide that? Without a conviction for sedition, I can't see the courts upholding it. I don't think obstruction of a Federal proceeding will do it. </p><p>He could be defeated in the Republican primaries. It seems impossible now, but it's still early. The most salient challenge to him yet within the party is the poll that shows that Nikki Haley does significantly better than he (or any other declared Republican candidate) against Biden. It's not hard to understand: she has a better chance of getting votes from some portion of those women who have had their rights reduced by Trumpist Supreme Court Justices. But still, if it comes to a primary head-to-head against any of them, he will get the majority in most or all states. As things stand. </p><p>There could even be something he does that finally goes beyond what his supporters, generally, can tolerate. Maybe trying to strangle Melania, or Tiffany? It's hard to imagine his support falling so much that it would drive him to quit, unless it were through unlikely electoral defeat. </p><p>I do feel the hammer blows of the trials will do damage, but they themselves are unlikely to drive him out. If they do, or if by other means Trump is out, though, it could get very interesting. If something were to happen soon, say before Super Tuesday, there would be a scramble to get into the race from people like Chris Sununu of New Hampshire or Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, along with a ramping up of the funds raised by candidates like Haley or Tim Scott, who may suddenly have a chance. Even Ron DeSantis, in this case!</p><p>I think it's far more likely, if we are presuming Trump out (and Biden remaining in) that this would be something happening much later, when Trump has a monster lead in delegates or has received the nomination. (I'm going by the deliberate pace of these trials, and that they may possibly wear on him physically as well.) If that's the case, I can't see the Republican convention delegates, or the Republican National Committee members, who'd be called for a quick decision after the convention, doing any kind of an about-face with regard to the Trumpist populist nationalist theme. So, that would point to a selection of the most Trumpy one around, Vivek Ramaswamy or Scott, or Kristi Noem (rumored to be Trump's favorite VP choice), maybe. </p><p>This kind of sudden Trump departure may not derail the Republicans' chances, even if Trump's departure is egregious or shameful. There seem to be many who would have less qualms about voting against the Democrats if the Presidential candidate were someone they didn't have to feel guilty about supporting. Similarly, if Trump bails early and the Republicans have time to consider their selection, that person may find their voice on issues like shrinking the Federal government and immigration in a way that will put the Biden campaign on the defensive. The successor is also likely to be considerably younger in that circumstance, which will also work against Biden's successful re-election. </p><p>I think the same logic could apply to Congressional races--voters tend to despise Washington but like their Congressperson. I don't think Trump's passing from the scene will hurt most Representatives from red districts, while the effect on swing districts would depend on the circumstances. There could be sympathetic support for Trump's successor, and there could be a rally around that person stronger than the feigned love Republican office-holders offer for the Wherever Man. That would mean coattails.</p><p>I don't see a Trump departure giving any assist to third-party candidacies of the right. Republicans would glom together very quickly. The same may not be true of the left: without Trump to unify Democrats, Biden's support may suffer and someone (RFKJR?) could cleave off some support. </p><p>So, this one's not all positive for Democratic chances by any means. But I'll still take it, unlikely as it seems.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-41474829485899217682023-09-13T14:27:00.003-06:002023-11-06T15:18:16.941-07:00The Crisis ScenarioIn the Null Scenario of political stasis under the closely-balanced partisan regime, we expect certain conditions to continue unchanged through the 2024 election. One is the absence of any bipartisanship; I'm not even going to consider the possibility that changes next year. The backdrop for the election cycle would change dramatically, though, if the relatively benign economy tanks, or if the war against Russian aggression is no longer so safely contained far from us. So far, Ukraine has held, and the cost to us of defending its sovereignty has only been material and financial, and there is no indication yet of imminent economic disaster. <div><br /></div><div>Those are two possible upsets against the status quo that are easily envisioned, though of course there are many others much harder to define specifically. South Korea, China, the Middle East, North Africa--there's a long list of potential spots that could overheat. A recurrence of Covid in a more virulent form, or a new pandemic. Some kind of prolonged "natural" environmental disaster in the US worse than the ones we've experienced this year.</div><div><br /></div><div>And then, there's the ones we might create for ourselves. Think of Black Lives Matter, and how that clamor rose above the pandemic itself. What about some sort of local resistance to governmental authority on a mass scale, and would it come from the right or the left? Could the continuing Fed policy of tightening (even if not additional rate increases) produce the recession many still expect, and could an initially mild recession lead rapidly to further unraveling of our economic wealth, as the 2008 one threatened to do?</div><div><br /></div><div>No one is expecting a <i>deus ex machina, </i>but a machine from outerspace? One of our satellites crashing down, or one of theirs? And who is "they", exactly? We are once again hearing of the suppression of information about some now-named "Unexplained Aerial Phenomena". </div><div><br /></div><div>To consider the political import, in most of the crises I have suggested above, Americans' strong tendency would be to pull together and seek to preserve that which can be saved. That's a conservative impulse, and, while the initial reaction to foreign dangers might be more in the direction of Trump's avoidance of entanglement, that doesn't tend to last forever. So, timing could be important: how the pandemic hurt Trump in the election was not his crazed initial behavior, or even the second, even more thickheaded phase he went through in the summer, but the fact he still hadn't gotten a coherent national response together by November. </div><div><br /></div><div>The principal thing to note about any of these crises is that they would change the terms of discussion. We would not be so focused on the Trump Trials, or the legitimacy of the 2020 election, or even abortion rights. The Constitution and its own critical issues would remain a topic, because it is always one, but the tragicomedy that is Trump's political career would become less central to most. </div><div><br /></div><div>I feel that in most of these cases the Biden administration would be able to rise to the occasion, which would be the key test: advantage to the incumbent, if it is perceived as handling the crisis well. Or, possibly even if not perceived well: see the 2004 election!</div><div><br /></div><div>I see crisis-driven disruptions to our politics in an election year as being less important than the long-term effects. The War of 1812 changed thinking about the need for a standing army; World War II gave impetus to the civil rights movement. </div><div><br /></div><div>There might well be a serious third-party arising from a crisis, which would signify that neither party's policy was addressing a significant popular sentiment about addressing it. A Peace Party, or a Climate Party, or a Gun Party. (Don't laugh!) I feel this is less than likely in most of these potential crises, at least in the same year. In an extreme case, turnout could drop sharply, adding more uncertainty to outcomes. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Senate/House: </b>Incumbents would tend to do well in this scenario. This might give the Democrats a better chance to defend difficult seats and hold control of the Senate (with Manchin). It could help Republicans in close districts to survive, and thus keep their party's House control as well. The exception might be if there is a perception that Congress itself is at fault directly for the crisis. I'm thinking here of economic paralysis arising out of Congressional deadlock. </div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Summary:</b> Though we would all wish to avoid the unexpected, its collateral effects on our politics may be less than catastrophic. </div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Ed. (10/12/23)</i> - I <a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-trump-collapse-scenario.html" target="_blank">promised</a> to address the crisis of completely unfinished trial business in this scenario. If a trial of major direct significance to Trump, such as the DC Jack Smith case, has an uncertain outcome even by November, voters will truly be in a quandary. That trial should be completed by then, even though Trump's strategy will be to delay, delay. A more likely situation would be a conviction in that trial, waiting for appeal, and the Georgia trial hitting its climax in the fall election season. Would the sentence be carried out? Would Trump be in a position to pardon himself if he wins? A conviction in Georgia would not be subject to his pardon, though the governor there could do it, if he wanted. </div><div><br /></div><div>It suggests something like what has been happening in Israel, pre-war, with Netanyahu fighting criminal prosecution while campaigning, and then more recently, trying to change the law so he wouldn't be prosecuted. It would bring great weakness in our global posture and likely would provoke one of our antagonists to start something. </div><div><br /></div><div>Electorally, I can't see Trump's whining producing much sympathy from the general public, even though the indictments helped his polling numbers within the Republican base. It is the independents, though, who will decide the election, and I suspect they would not appreciate the ambiguity. </div><div><br /></div>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-43660289143296601482023-09-13T09:40:00.003-06:002023-09-13T10:17:58.868-06:00Biden Weakened<p> It is painfully easy to imagine the situation in which President Biden cannot conduct a full-throated political campaign, though still able to function in his job. It is one that is much more serious than the current state of Biden's <i>compos mentis et corporalis, </i>yet not death or even terminal illness or permanent incapacity. It could even include his being an invalid for some period of time. </p><p>It is not hard to see Biden adopting a nearly 100% digital, TV-based approach to the 2024 campaign under these circumstances, due to whatever health issues. He almost did that in 2020, and it worked out okay. The circumstances will be different this time, and his minimal participation in public events, with no debates, will be noted by those whisperers who will not allow him to "do the FDR thing" (or maybe he would think of it as "doing the JFK thing"). He would be weakened, whenever it became general knowledge, anytime before the election. </p><p>The critical question in assessing what could happen in such a circumstance is the timing. For this, it would be before the election. The 25th Amendment covers who acts as President, but not who would run for the office. No one's going to allow someone from the opposition to take the White House under those circumstances. So, the issue is what would be the effect on the election of a serious downturn in his health before the election? One where he doesn't step aside?</p><p>Whenever it becomes public, the stock market would surely take a tumble, a forerunner of a general near-panic. In this scenario, we assume Biden makes some sort of a "recovery" allowing him to soldier on. Which he would no doubt choose to do, other factors being equal. </p><p>One other factor would be if some Democrats decide that this is too much, that their suspicion he can't complete the job has become a conviction, or even a certainty. If Biden's obvious weakness shows before the nominating convention (Chicago, August; sound familiar?), a challenged President known to be unable to address the assembly could lead to disaster on the floor (see 1968). Here, though, we're imagining Biden's survival in some form and going on to November. Like Hubert Humphrey. </p><p>As I recall, the Democrats' antics in '68 failed to convince "Democrat" George Wallace, who ran on a populist third-party and actually won 13% of the popular vote and several Southern states. Democratic splittism must wait for another time. A third-party run by disaffected Democrats would be fatal. </p><p>If Biden weakens very late in the general election campaign, the Democrats would have to cover themselves with agreement and public announcement on how electors pledged to Biden would vote on the equivalent of January 6, in 2025, if Joe were not going to be able to take the Oath of Office on January 20. Perhaps a President pro tempore of the Senate would be named, just in case, or perhaps Senate Democrats would block that in favor of Speaker Hakeem Jeffries taking the #2 spot in succession? </p><p>That is all hypothetical, of course. Some Biden weakness emerging very late in the campaign would be worst-case, as voters would be confused as to exactly whom they would be choosing to govern. A weakened Biden means a strengthened, enraged Donald Trump. His bully nature would emerge, untrammeled. It has the potential to be the worst tragedy of all. </p><p><b>Senate:</b> Without significant assistance from the President, several incumbent Senators would be in great danger. Tester (MT) would have to run on his own, as would Sherrod Brown in Ohio; I feel Bob Casey (PA) would still be a winner. But there could be trouble for Tammy Baldwin (WI) and Jacky Rosen (NV), while Manchin in WV then looks like a lost cause, and the party's push for Ruben Gallego in AZ to replace Sinema could fall victim to a weakened central party. </p><p>We should expect the Republicans to regain control of the Senate in this scenario, Mitch or no Mitch. Something like 53-47 Republican looks like an average result given these conditions. </p><p><b>House: </b> Though Democratic turnout might be reduced overall by such a demoralizing development, there might also be a countervailing strong push in heavily-Democratic districts to protect the nation from a complete Trumpist takeover. That might preserve the floor of the number of Democratic House districts. Given the opportunities that exist to gain seats, there might even be a chance to get the majority back. Unlike the Senate, where 60% of votes are needed for most purposes, in the House 50%+1 can get most things done. (With a strong leader.) </p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-54107034071617800512023-09-12T14:37:00.003-06:002023-09-12T15:05:19.545-06:00The Trump Collapse Scenario<p>This would seem the most logical outcome, yet it does not seem all that probable. The way this plays out is that Trump's support in the primaries carries him through to the nomination, but results along the line of the <i>Standard Trump Trial Outcomes </i>(see below) eventually cost him momentum, and his vote sinks relative to his fall opponent. (Here we presume that opponent remains Biden, though it could be against an emergency Democratic replacement, if it is a consensus choice not creating scandal.)</p><p>Based on review of Presidential contests from the last few decades, it appears there is a tipping point between the close ones, where a few medium-sized, winner-take-all results decide the Electoral College contest, and ones where the margin in the EC blows up disproportionately to the popular vote margin. The key ones to note in this regard are 1988 (Bush Sr. v. Dukakis) and 2008 (Obama v. McCain). Each was a 7-point popular vote win; Obama got 336 Electoral Votes and Bush 426. If you go much beyond that, it becomes an Electoral College rout (1980, 1964). </p><p>Biden won by 4.4% in 2020's popular vote. If he can gain just 2-3% against that result in 2024, the chances for Trump deteriorate rapidly. The three most-critical swing states from 2020 (AZ, GA, PA) are no longer so close, while NC comes into range. Trump's imminent loss also would be likely to encourage votes for any sour-grapes third parties on the ballot (Libertarian, No Labels, "Constitutional"), votes the Republicans might otherwise count upon. </p><p>In terms of the Trump Trials in this scenario, there will be a mixed bag by the time of the convention. Certainly not just a litany of guilty verdicts; there will be some trials in process, some not even commenced, probably a dismissal on some charges, maybe a mistrial. I'm thinking one or two convictions, no sentencing decisions to speak of. The Republican Convention attendees will be as worried as can be, but most will try to put a brave face upon it somehow. Some will not attend; there may be even a futile floor motion contrary to the professed unanimity. Some splinter group will put on a third-party opposition effort--a kind of Evan McMullin, maybe even him. A bad show. </p><p>From that point, the numbers trend down. Trump's future Oscar-winning performance in his defense at the GA trial* provides mixed-to-negative results in the polls. The one state poll that can be trusted--in Iowa--shows a dead heat. Florida too close to call. </p><p>The floor in terms of popular vote is clear: 37% (1984, 1964). This is true for either party, even when there is a third-party of significance. So, Trump scores in the 38-42 range and loses by 7-15 percent, the Electoral College result being a margin of 100-300 points. </p><p>A defeat so comprehensive that few Trump supporters remain afterwards to plead his cause. </p><p>As collateral outcomes, Trumpism is defeated, the Republicans have to regroup, the Democrats will be able to govern. The world will not fall apart. For two years, anyway. </p><p><b>Senate:</b> This is the one scenario when the Democrats actually have a chance to increase their margin in the Senate. In particular, I would think this is the case when Manchin perceives the chance to keep his seat, stays put, and wins as a Democrat. The key swing state Senate contests (NV, MT, PA, WI) all hold, which makes the long-shot opportunities to pick up a GOP seat more interesting. </p><p>It will still be close, with Sen. McConnell in uncertain condition for the remaining two years in his term making for a scramble among the ambitious would-be party leadership to regroup in the post-Trump era. </p><p><b>House: </b>We can talk about a Blue Wave again--we would hear about it, as the Presidential horserace becomes a runaway--but the Republicans have a pretty durable floor, somewhere in the range of 195 seats. Even more, if they can successfully fight off the courts' decisions that they must re-gerrymander in a way that allows more minority seats in the South. </p><p>There would be a variety of fallback positions Republican candidates will take under this scenario, but most could be described as "making local constituents' interests foremost". Hiding under the rock from which they came. </p><p>Democrats will pick up 10-15 seats easily, ensuring control. The next 10-15 are possible but not certain. That puts the tally in the range of 228 to 233, a workable majority for most purposes. </p><p><b>Local/State Elections: </b>There may be a somewhat valid talking point for the mainstream media in the weeks following the wipeout about the relatively strong performance in red states for state and local elections. </p><p><b><u>Standard Trump Trial Outcomes</u></b></p><p><i>These are what I expect, in general, for all the Scenarios, except where noted. </i></p><p><i>1) NY Trial(s): </i> It's best not to expect too much from the criminal trial finally filed in New York. When it comes, it will be Michael Cohen's comeuppance in court against Trump--Cohen's already been jailed for his role in this malfeasance. Trump's fraud in this case is somewhat minor league, by his standards. </p><p>It goes all the way back to 2016's hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and false reporting of it. It wouldn't be so much except that it was the first-ever criminal indictment of him. In political terms, it's old business, certainly discounted in the 2020 re-election run, though that was a chaotic campaign season for the ages. Still, it could be the first criminal case to go to jury, and thus could result in the first conviction, if the timing works. It is secondary, at best, in terms of scheduling. </p><p>There's another NY trial, a civil case against the Trump Organization for similar offenses on a grander and more prolonged scale. Trump's accountant has already gone to jail on this, but he is so far going stiff upper lip. This one is the domestic equivalent of sanctions; that particular entity will be prohibited from a lot of legal and typical borderline activities they would normally engage upon under that name. It may end up being Trump's record-breaking sixth (?) business bankruptcy. It won't stop him and his criminal syndication activity, though; he'd just move it to DeSantis' Florida. </p><p><i>2) Mar-a-Lago documents case: </i> This one is expected to be in Florida. I'm expecting this to be the last, or one of the last, to go to trial, probably after the 2024 election. The Florida judge seems very willing to do whatever she can, within and at the edge of normal ethical standards, to help Trump. In this regard, I think this case--a sure conviction, under any reasonable objective view--to be the least likely to have a negative effect on Trump's re-election. </p><p>Jack Smith cleverly positioned it to be a clearly winning case. It does not relate to whether Trump legally ever had possession of the documents, post-January 20. It relates to his stupid efforts to hide and prevent the government's recovering the documents, so his culpability is almost beyond doubt. I think his thinking is that it is a fallback case so Trump will not get off completely scot-free, but if it goes beyond January, 2025, there's the risk re-elected President Trump could make it all moot. </p><p><i>3) DC Case of January 6: </i> I see this as the biggie: it is unmistakably the US v. Trump, and it is about whether his actions leading up to the riot constituted crimes against the US and the Constitution. Even if it's just called "Obstruction of a Federal Proceeding" (the most likely charge for conviction, as I see it), that proceeding was one with serious Constitutional import, so it puts him as opposed to our self-governing republic operating as such. It is clearly a violation of his oath of office. He did it, so if they execute the trial properly, it will lead to conviction, even upon appeal, whenever that comes up. </p><p>I don't see its leading to his disqualification under the 14th Amendment, though. That would probably require a two-thirds act of the Senate, which is not likely to be forthcoming. </p><p>As for timing, Jack Smith's prioritizing this one over the other, the Mar-a-Lago case. It appears the other DA's in other jurisdictions are also likely to do the same. This could make it the one that has a conviction prior to the Republican party nominating convention in July. Right now, it's scheduled for March, but some movement in that date (always backward) seems likely. Considering any phase of the campaign after April, it could be a factor, or still not sinking in. </p><p>Electoral impact: Yes, that is the question. Both the question of guilty or not guilty, but also what will happen after. Either way, really. That is, if the verdict comes before November. If it is still pending then, it becomes a whole different story, see Scenario 3. </p><p><i>4) GA RICO: </i>This is the one that will affect popular media the most, so most likely to affect voter behavior, one way or the other. Unlike the others, it looks as though it will be televised!</p><p>RICO is a fair stretch, so appropriate in general, so questionable in this particular case. I think most will get off on some form of "it was too disorganized". The real organiztional activity occurred through untraceable phones and Telegram. </p><p>That is a nice package, but the real crimes are much more tangible and threatening, for the likes of Giuliani and Meadows. The likelihood of a conviction of Trump himself is too hard for me to say--it will probably need some form of smoking gun, beyond the incriminating phone call. Like in The Caine Mutiny, though, it doesn't matter the verdict--Trump will have great difficulty with any competent cross-examination, in which he will be exposed as the con man and habitual liar that he is. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>*We should all expect Donald F. Trump to appear in person as defendant, to be precise in the defense case for the GA trial, contrary to the advice of every well-wishing legal partisan. Too risky! </p><p>He will be making his plea to be freed from all charges in this case. He will immortalize the obvious line, "I never even went to Georgia!" (I'm sure that will be proven false, in cross-exam.) His performance (before cross-exam, anyway) will be rehearsed, confident, if possible a little less whiny, sir? It will be the Exhibit A for future movie versions of the <u>The Obstruction</u> which will win someone an Oscar, not Trump. Whatever medium it is that they will be using in, say, 2053. </p><p><br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-25400702207167421692023-09-07T00:06:00.003-06:002023-09-14T15:12:34.856-06:00Initial 2024 Election Post<p> </p><p>I guess I have to admit the 2024 electoral campaign has started. If candidates have already entered and <a href=" Francis Suarez ends campaign for Republican presidential nomination | CNN Politics." target="_blank">failed</a>, then something must be happening. Indeed, something similar seems to have happened to the campaign of the Marquis (de Sadeness); Governor Ron DeSantis' campaign has already peaked and is imploding. </p><p>Another indicator: PredictIt has posted its first market on the popular vote margin (Dem%-Rep%). As far as PI is concerned, this clarifies the limitations they have agreed to with regard to new markets, after a hiatus for over a year. They still focused the brackets on the null scenario of an Electoral College nailbiter, in the interests of generating revenue (and academic research, too!) To note the initial market take for the record, Dem winning % (tie being the exception) is about 60-40, taking into account the bid/ask. </p><p>I don't count that initial debate as part of the campaign, as such; more like spring training in baseball. I can't resist a couple of comments, anyway. Smarmy Vivek has postulated himself as the most Trumpy of all, and it will be hard to top him for smarminess. Ah, DeSadness! I think it was a little too evident Ron saw that gig as nowhere. He was back in his element at home with hurricane warnings and gratuitous insult to Biden. </p><p>I will proceed with a scenario-based analysis, considering the effects upon the massively-important House and Senate races for each. The 2022-23 status of Congress is anomalous, with the House improbably with a Republican majority, considering the Senate has a narrow Democratic majority. Most likely outcomes are reversal of both, but the Presidential race should be so consequential that it will carry more coattails than many recent partisan re-alignments in Congress. </p><p> I will also need to consider possible effects of significant third-party candidacies in each scenario, something that has not happened since Ross Perot in '92 and '96 (the marginal effects of Nader/Stein-type results, as we can expect for Cornel West's candidacy, for example, not changing the scenario, though they could be tiebreakers). </p><p>The planned sequence of posts by scenario is as follows, starting, arbitrarily, by my choice of the most desirable one: </p><p>1 - Trump Collapse. The weight of his criminal trials cripples him--it only takes a few percent of his following turning against him, but he won't quit. </p><p>2- Biden Weakened - Either economic weakness or undeniable physical/mental weakness makes him less-than-viable for all but his committed supporters. </p><p>3 - War/Chaos - A crisis of massive proportion. Think Pearl Harbor/9-11/COVID/UFO's, or widespread insurrection.</p><p>4 - Trump Out - He does quit, or die, or he is barred from campaign as a result of any of his convictions or court rulings. </p><p>5 - Biden Out - He becomes deathly ill and must be replaced. Or won't leave and is the victim of a successful party revolt. </p><p>6 - Both Out - The most likely way is Trump gives in or is out for whatever reason, and Biden then finds a reason he doesn't need to run.</p><p>7 Stasis - the Null Scenario. Biden and Trump run until the bitter end. Debates will be few, and Trump's plea in the Georgia case proves the climax, one way or the other.</p><p>I don't want to get too precise about the likelihood of the scenarios, but I would say 1 and 2 are about equally likely at 10% or so, Scenario 6 is probably more likely than either 4 or 5, and all three add up to 20-30%, and Scenario 3 we can pull a number out of the air and say is no more than 5%. Those events have happened several times in the past century, but have not often come in election years, as it turns out (2020 the exception!) </p><p>That leaves no more than 40-50% likelihood for the Null Scenario that everyone focuses on. It is, though, the one with the highest likelihood, so I will go into it with the most depth. </p><p>I do not want at all to trivialize or counter the argument that this election is extremely important, on the order of ones like 1860, 1932, or 1968. In most of these scenarios I describe briefly above, the key question underlying the competition is whether our Constitution can hold up under the threat of Executive malfeasance and manipulation. It managed to hold up during Watergate, but this combines that with elements of classic American rebellious behavior threatening our way of governing ourselves. </p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-65485202357799589692023-08-23T16:33:00.003-06:002023-08-24T16:08:32.165-06:00News of the World <p><b><i>Yes, Virginia, There is Climate Change</i></b> - It''s hard to imagine how anyone could doubt it after this summer. July was the hottest month in recorded history, but there is more than just the "global warming", which itself is real enough. </p><p>I had always thought the global recognition of a changed climate would come through high winds, experienced globally, something like the Jet Stream coming down from the higher atmosphere into our level. Like the rising temperature, the high winds are a natural expression of increased energy released into our closed ecosystem from carbon sequestered from the remains of living things hundreds of million years ago. We see that uncontrollable wildfires are occurring in many parts of the world, the combination of weather conditions and troubled natural vegetation. These should be expected to continue, releasing even more carbon into the atmosphere. </p><p><b><i>From Baseball</i></b> - TV broadcasters have an annoying habit of referring to players/teams as being the best (or worst) "in baseball", when they mean in our Major Leagues. As if there were no other games being played worthy of the name "baseball". Anyway: </p><p><i>Big Reds</i> - There is a revival of fortunes this year for my team, the Cincinnati Reds. They are currently slumping due to a severely-weakened starting rotation, so not quite as hot as a few weeks ago, when they battled for the Division lead. It is time to be realistic: they passed on trading any of their rising infield prospects and arriving stars for more pitching, and we are seeing the result. They have time to rectify their rotation for 2024 and make a real run for it. In the meantime, my prediction was for third place, and I'm OK with that this year. If they do make the playoffs, probably as a Wild Card, I don't expect much at all. </p><p><i>Still Astros-Braves</i>: They are the best teams in their leagues. Of course, anything can happen in short baseball series. The dangerous Dodgers are getting their star pitchers back, and the Padres, Brewers, and the AL's Angels all have enough to make surprise runs. The Cubs have caught the Reds and have similar prospects, short and long. There should be some AL East team opposing the Astros in the ALCS, though Texas, who has given Houston a run for it, could make things interesting in the AL semis (for the Orioles--the team I always fail to consider--or Rays, Blue Jays, Red Sox, etc.) As always, I warn to watch out for the team that gets in as the final (third) Wild Card--it will have just survived a tense competition and will be in peak form. Meanwhile, the top two teams in each league will face the challenge of using a week off to prepare rather than lose their edge. Those are pretty much set with the Braves, Dodgers, Orioles, and either Texas or Houston. </p><p>Meanwhile, we must all pause and consider the greatness of Shohei "Unicorn" Ohtani and his 2023 season. The question <a href="https://www.mlb.com/news/shohei-ohtani-case-for-best-season-ever-2023?partnerId=zh-20230805-993778-mlb-1-A&qid=1026&utm_id=zh-20230805-993778-mlb-1-A&bt_ee=RGN4mr2bNqPVQuoUysRGpYRG2ArrP5D0G5Hq7b1i3cKx92LpHpZ%2F7rLKMHV9e2jT&bt_ts=1691240212323" target="_blank">arises</a> if there has ever been any season that rises to his performance, as there is no doubt there has never been one like his, for its combination of hitting and pitching. </p><p>Bottom line on the rules changes: the game absorbed them fairly well. The near-shift replaced the shift, and the game moves faster, with more baserunning and fielding involved. The lure of hitting to the opposite field remains. </p><p><b><i>Hero Departures</i></b></p><p><i>Sinead O'Connor</i> - (July 26) Check out her voice on The Edge's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex8-f02X-AE" target="_blank">recording</a> of "Heroine" (correct spelling) for the soundtrack of "Captive" (some creepy movie that seems was never released). She could wail with the best of them. And she had things to wail aboot. </p><p><i><a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lowell-Weicker-Jr">Lowell Weicker</a></i> - (June 28) If I'm not mistaken, he was the last person running as Republican that I voted for, in 1976 (a blowout win for him). Who needs to be reminded of his heroic performance demanding the truth from Nixon's henchmen in the Ervin Senate Committee? His career as a Republican Senator and an Independent governor of Connecticut is a great example of how a true nonpartisan should behave, but where did he come from? The answer is, he was a classic rich Republican, an heir to a fortune like Jay Rockefeller (who was a Democratic Senator from West Virginia, repeatedly re-elected. Imagine that.)</p><p><i>Robbie Robertson </i>(August 9) -- The lead guitarist and songwriter for The Band, which was Bob Dylan's group for a critical period in the late '60's and early '70's. He went on to a successful solo career and did soundtracks for Scorsese movies. His is an interesting heritage story involving native Americans and Jews and Canadians. But he practically invented Americana! A good lesson that America is more than just the US. </p><p><i>Paul Reubens</i> (July 30) - Hard to say what I feel about Pee-Wee. Personally, I couldn't stand watching his show, though it was very popular in certain circles for being campy. He seemed to be very aware, very sensitive, even kind, but he had to do time for sex crimes. </p><p><i>John "Bud" Wilson </i>(April 9) - I didn't know him, but he was famous, beloved. He had a spectacular career as a physician and surgeon, and then afterwards built a legacy from his land conservation efforts in the Lama area (north of Taos, in the mountains). </p><p><i>Milan Kundera </i>(July 11) - I hadn't heard much from him for decades, but <u>The Unbearable Lightness of Being </u> remains a touchstone novel for latter-day existentialist thought. Written when his Czechoslovakia was behind the Iron Curtain, it helped us on this side of the Wall to understand how life was, and was not, different over there then. </p><p><i>Tony Bennett</i> (July 20) - Like Reubens, I wouldn't say he was a hero of mine, but he was one for many. His jazzy versions of easy listening classics were one thing, but his public behavior and steadfast stance for justice, equality, and chill made him easily enviable. </p><p><i>Cormac McCarthy</i> (June 13) - He had an uncompromising vision of doom and gloom in the post-modern West. I would say he had a good understanding of how the land could be "No Country for Old Men", but he rubbed our face in it, over and over. I loved "All the Pretty Horses", before his method began to wear on me. Still, deserves maximum respect for his honesty. </p><p><i style="font-weight: bold;">The War - </i>Unlike all the <a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/05/2023-year-of-phony-crisis.html" target="_blank">phony crises</a> in this tweener kind of year, Russian premier Putin has decided that we must continue to have a real one, spreading death and destruction widely. All efforts to contain it are subject to be overcome by both sides' desire to strike in new ways at their enemy, creating escalation without direction. Efforts to bring the butchery to an end are suspended until Ukraine can make enough progress to regain its sovereign territory, which has so far in this counteroffensive been slow or non-existent. </p><p>Today we receive word that Valery Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner Group, who has both served and irritated Putin, was believed to be on a plane that crashed in Russia. How and why it crashed is something we are not likely to know, but that his days were numbered was an easy prediction. Which I <a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/06/showdowns.html" target="_blank">made</a> not long ago--his departure seems to have been accomplished sooner than I expected. </p><p><i style="font-weight: bold;">The 2024 Election-- </i>I have enjoyed some respite from the continuous political wars--ignoring the dozens of emails daily requesting money for next year's battles. Alas, it seems we can avoid the looming struggle no more. I will be blogging on politics tonight as the GOP debate kicks off the unavoidable. </p><p><br /></p><p> </p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-37537423945299651392023-06-25T13:49:00.002-06:002023-08-09T00:18:59.303-06:00Showdowns<p> We'll start light but add weight below. </p><p><b><i>Reds v. Braves</i></b> - The collision of two hot teams Friday night--the Reds on an 11-game win streak and the Braves on a 7-game one of their own--produced what must surely be one of the great regular-season games of this increasingly vital season. In the first of a three-game series, the Reds spotted Atlanta a 5-0 lead in the first inning, but had made it up by the third and took the lead. Joey Votto's triumphant return featured here with two clutch homers, but it was newly-minted superstar Elly De La Cruz who hit for the cycle (homer, double, single, and a thrilling triple) who stole the show. The Braves came up with back-to-back-to-back homers in the 8th, but Cincinnati held on for a 11-10 win. </p><p>The second game was reversed, as the Reds' ninth-inning rally fell a run short, ending their best streak since the 19th century. De La Cruz' cycle recalled the Reds' legendary great <a href="https://www.prospects1500.com/milb/prospects-of-the-week-august-1-august-7/attachment/elly-de-la-cruz-eric-davis/" rel="nofollow">Eric Davis</a> and that team filled with young stars that came from nowhere to win the 1990 World Series. This team does have that capability to hit anyone, and their relief pitching is rising toward the quality level of those Nasty Boys of '90--they will need that, as despite some young talent, their starting pitching will never be enough in that ballpark. I suspect Atlanta may make this rivalry look a bit more one-sided when the Reds visit Atlanta.</p><p><b><i>Alcaraz v. Djokovic</i></b> - This is the indicated tennis final for the upcoming Wimbledon men's singles championship. They are the clear #1 and #2; it's not easy to envision either losing prior to this showdown. If the envisaged final happens, it will be decisive in establishing King of the Hill for the year. Djokovic is trying to run victory laps in his Grand Slam competition with Federer and Nadal, and Carlos is ready to try to dislodge him, which a Wimbledon win should do. </p><p>They are both all-around talents with all the shots, excellent tactical ability, and extraordinary court coverage (legs). Initially, it seemed that Carlitos was just following in Rafael Nadal's Spanish steps, but I now see more similarity with Djokovic and his approach. We may see in Wimbledon whether he can match his mental discipline. </p><p><b><i>Prigozhin v. Gerasimov</i></b> - The Russian head of the infamous Wagner mercenary force brought his feud with the incompetent, corrupt Russian Defense establishment out into the open, so much so that even brainwashed Russian citizens would notice it. Though dramatic, I would minimize it as having singular importance, being another example of the chaotic Russian war effort. While Prigozhin's force moved through the interior of Russia in a way that was shocking, he shied away from confronting Putin himself. And Putin, for his part, was willing to grant Prigozhin the favored exile status he has given other oligarchs in the past, ones who do not challenge Vladimir's reign. </p><p>But, in fact Prigozhin violated that trust, the understanding between superior and subordinate, and Putin, while sympathetic to his complaint, will not forgive. I would bet on the parlay that neither Prigozhin, nor the general in charge of the Ukraine campaign (Gerasimov)will survive beyond spring of 2024 in a form we would recognize as living. </p><p>I would have to say that this moment--when Wagner is standing down and the Chechen forces were pulled back to counter the Wagner threat--must be the time for Ukraine to push forward with whatever offensive they can muster, against the weak spots that they identified or that suddenly emerge. There is still the possibility of a rout, such as occurred on the other side of the Dneiper and in the Kharkiv area earlier on. Barring that, I look for an armistice (not a peace deal) before winter. </p><p><i style="font-weight: bold;">Trump v. DeSantis </i>- Many of these matchups are in the genre I call "Alien vs. Predator", after the sequel movie pitting monsters. One roots only for all involved to fall. In this case, the Crueler than Thou policy competition favors "Marquis" DeSadeness over whiny, vengeful D'Head* due to DeSantis' more targeted attack (vague though it is). This Republican campaign is beyond that, though-- Alien v. Predator v. King Kong v. Mothra v. Godzilla. Shells flying in all directions. </p><p>My betting on RNom on PredictIt, one of the few, but very salient, markets still traded there, is No on both headliners, looking for the combined second shoe from Jack Smith and Georgia's indictments to take the wind from Trump's back near year's end. The opening will be too late for DeSantis, though; I see a path for a third person to snatch it, whoever that might be could hardly be worse than the winner of the current featured bout. </p><p><b><i>Roe v. Wade</i></b> - <i>(Just to remind, "Roe" was the complainant seeking legal access to abortion; Wade represented those who would limit it)</i> - Wade picked up a significant win with the Dobbs decision; Roe countered with the '22 midterms. Like Ali v. Frazier, the third showdown will have some finality, as the Democrats seemed determined to make it front-and-center, while the Republicans are playing up their pro-life credentials during this pre-primary season in a way that will make it hard for them to hide next November. If the Democrats win in '24, Roe will gain some legislative backing, whereas if the GOP wins, the question will be simply whether there will be Federal prohibitions (the 15-week standard seems to be a consensus position for Republicans) or will a chaotic state-by-state mess remain. </p><p>In the meantime, the numbers are starting to roll in for the first year of Wade's revival: How many abortions averted, how many diverted, and how many lives ruined. I would say it is more the awareness of the fragility of our personal rights that is the issue than those numbers, while on the right the danger of overreach is everpresent. </p><p><b style="font-style: italic;">Humans v. Gaia - </b>This is one of those battles in which, the more you win, the more you lose. We are definitely winning the climate change this season (as opposed to the embattled less-climate change faction). Excessive rain, excessive temperature, and aggravated cyclonic storms are the themes for the "temperate" and "subtropical" zones (not sure about the arctic ones yet). El Nino will ensure record global mean temperatures this year. </p><p>Politically, the "we still have lots of fossil fuels, what's the hurry?" faction is ascendant. (Also here, right, Gov. Lujan Grisham?) The problems with relying too much on electricity to replace fossil fuels are many (batteries, grid leakage, the fossil fuel sourcing for much electricity). Nuclear is raising its head in various forms to fill the gaps in timing from renewables, which will be a mixed response at best. </p><p>I am encouraged by the recognition in some of the areas impacted by the current heat wave (in Arizona, Texas, and much of the Deep South) that these are problems that will recur. One part of the answer is the establishment of public "cooling centers". If we must air condition the masses, this is the efficient way to do it. </p><p>I am not one who believes Gaia will aim for total annihilation of humanity in order to cleanse itself--She is wise enough to know that we will do it for ourselves, sooner or later. We will survive our climate snafu, but the issue is, as always, quality of life. In this our track record is poor and our current level (better than ever, but) vulnerable. </p><p><br /></p><p>* I have decided to cease referring to the Criminal Traitor Former President as "Dickhead", as the reference shows insufficient respect for the male organ. </p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-51116745166514844692023-05-21T01:22:00.001-06:002023-05-21T01:22:11.552-06:002023: The Year of Phony Crisis<p>We've had some real critical moments in the past couple of years: the COVID pandemic, the 2020 Presidential election and the January 6 aftermath of it, and the definitive break with the "postwar" and "post-Cold War" peaceful international status in the West caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine. </p><p>What's going on now with our 24/7 news cycle is a batch of invented crisis-mongering, whipping ourselves into unwarranted frenzies about lesser issues, or news stories that aren't even issues. Our electoral parties are similarly making somewhat hysterical appeals--for fundraising purposes, of course--in a year where there are really no domestic elections of national significance. On that subject, let's just keep our political contribution powder dry this year, as we will be called upon for 2024, which is certain to be an epic battle with massive potential consequences.</p><p>Looking at some of the specific so-called crises: </p><p><b><i>The Border</i></b> - The expiration of the Title 42 mandate requiring US border authorities to turn away virtually all migrant asylum-seekers is the opposite of a crisis. It instead marks the official end of pandemic crisis-related policy with regard to immigration. The policy was likely a violation of international law, but we have often seen that concern fall by the wayside when it runs up against national security interest. Personally, I doubt that Title 42 really had all that much to do with protecting public health--the virus never observed border niceties--but was instead a convenient method for our Dickhead 45 to fulfill his populist promise to close down opportunities for immigration.</p><p>Now, the promised tidal wave of uncontrolled border crossing has not materialized. If we are looking forward for initiatives to manage likely future surges of unsponsored people seeking to immigrate, I can propose one (see * below), but for the time being our careful preparations are providing for orderly handling of asylum applications. This clear failure of one of the Republicans' pet political rabble-rousing notions is an outcome worthy of public promotion. </p><p><i style="font-weight: bold;">"Balloongate" - </i>The publicly-revealed identification of a Chinese spy balloon over us was accidental. (see <i>The Sheep Look Up</i>, an underrated near-future sci-fi novel from a couple decades ago by the hugely underrated, largely-forgotten John Brunner). The balloon's incursion was no big deal, it turns out; they'd sent them over us before, and our intelligence agencies knew it. It was kind of fun to shoot it down, though I thought it would be more spectacular to figure out how to capture it whole. The problem is that it poisoned further our messy relationship with China, which is one of utmost importance. Overreaction should be carefully avoided, on both sides. </p><p><b><i>The Debt Limit</i></b> -- Our Federal government's brinkmanship in authorizing this routine measure is totally unnecessary. Congress approved the spending, and the revenue measures which only partially fund them, and thus the debt. The Treasury does not need to have approval to execute the laws that relate to these--that's in the Constitution. They must issue the debt instruments, just as they must seek to collect revenues. If the subject is, instead, reducing that gap between revenue and spending, fine. A different question. President Biden will find a way to have two linked bills, as a concession to the Republican House majority, but the one relating to the debt limit needs to have some measure preventing future inanity of the sort going on now. </p><p><b><i>Banking Deposits</i></b> - One unintended consequence of the official interest rate rises the Federal Reserve has used, in its efforts to combat the higher inflation seen since the pandemic receded, has been some banks' competition to attract or retain deposits by raising the rates they offer. Banks naturally want to grow profits, and in order to make more loans they need to have funding to correspond, but there is great danger in getting too far ahead of the pack. The money thus attracted is unstable, ready to pull out when a new, even higher rate is offered by others, or simply because the depositors' timeframe is short-term.</p><p>From the accounts I've read, the failed Silicon Valley Bank had this problem. Their management seemed to think they had a nearly-unlimited profit-generating machine, taking in large demand deposits (getting those depositors to promise exclusivity, a different bad practice) and laying off the money in long-term bonds, getting fat spreads between rates offered and loans (bonds are a form of loan). This creates what's called "duration risk"; it is mitigated if a bank has, behind that speculative funding, some more stable core deposits or sufficient capital. Without that, when these well-heeled tech firms found other needs for their deposits and pulled them out, a liquidity crisis occurred at SVB--they didn't have the money to pay back the depositors--and the bank became insolvent and was taken over by regulators. This was a huge error by the bank's asset-liability management function, which is expected to contain such a risk. </p><p>Treasury regulators moved to assure that all deposits would be protected and available, even those way in excess of the FDIC's insurance limits. The move was a regrettable precedent, one necessitated by their belated recognition that this medium-large bank's failure presented a risk to the whole banking system. Yet the contagion they spotted has spread to other banks, ones not necessarily afflicted with the same problem: any bank is vulnerable to depositors' panicky flight if enough of them act simultaneously (as in Jimmy Stewart's bank in the movie <i>It's a Wonderful Life</i>). Banking institutions are now obliged to take some unpleasant measures, reducing their spreads and reducing their lending to make sure they protect their liquidity. A broader crisis should thus be averted, and banks will subsequently look for opportunities to start taking deposit rates back down to restore profitability as soon as they feel they can. </p><p>This one is more like the "opportunity event" that is supposedly the Chinese term for "crisis". The lesson going forward is that it is not just the identified "too big to fail" extra-large institutions that need close supervision on the management of assets, liabilities, and capital, and that smaller institutions' contributions to the FDIC (an agency which is normally self-funded by the banks that are themselves regulated by it) need to have, in their calculations, the risk of deposit outflow taken more into account. </p><p>The real crises for the US, apart from that looming 2024 electoral battle royal, are festering policy problems that are not being addressed, storms that are gathering force. I would list among those our electoral system (voting rights, anti-democratic measures, threats to electoral officials), our decaying education system (especially the lack of grounding in civics, history, and critical analysis in it, along with inadequate funding and inadequate compensation for teachers), lack of commitment to measures to combat or mitigate climate change, our diplomatic impasse with China (subject of more posts here in the near future), lack of a meaningful immigration policy (actually, a global problem), and, of course, guns. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>* My long-term proposal would be to work with Mexico (imagine that!) to create a large, well-funded expanded consulate somewhere a decent distance away from our border (Matamoros, or Monterrey, maybe) as a center for handling asylum applications for those coming from beyond Mexico. Additional staffing to handle them, and housing for 30 days for those would-be migrants, along with enhanced security provided both by Mexico and the US, working together. It's not the comprehensive reform of immigration policy we need, but just a sufficiently aggressive provision to cool the issue until such time as we can look at it rationally (post-Trump). </p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-86125899403394419572023-05-06T11:26:00.005-06:002023-05-20T21:59:36.834-06:00A Longer Shrift<p>Whatever a "shrift" is, we had a short amount of it for baseball in my "Play-In Tournament" <a href="https://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2023/04/play-in-tournament-edition.html" target="_blank">posting</a>. Yes, I was in a hurry to get it out, and I wanted to mention briefly baseball's season just beginning. However, I failed to mention among the "aspiring" teams two or three that I should have noted. Two are Toronto, always a little more than just average, and Minnesota, who can win their AL Central division anytime they get adequate pitching, and theirs has been more than adequate so far. </p><p>The main omission, though, was the Tampa Bay Rays, who were 10-0 at the time. They made that 13-0 before losing, tying the major league record for consecutive wins at the start, and then, once the streak ended, redoubled their success. At this point, approximately 20% of the regular season completed, they are still on record pace, and now appear to be at least co-favorite to win the AL championship. </p><p>In a short playoff series, surprises should be expected--as with the Phillies' run to the World Series last year--but the Rays' success in playoffs would be more like fulfillment of long-held expectations than a surprise. They have a relatively low budget among contenders, but field a well-rounded, balanced team that produces plenty of runs, led by the underrated Randy Arozarena. He had a huge playoff run a couple years ago, but we'd sort of forgotten how good he can be, until now. </p><p>Of course, regular season brilliance can be easily wiped out by an early playoff loss, as we have seen recently with the first-round loss of the NBA's best regular-season team, the Milwaukee Bucks, and also with that of the NHL's record-breaking regular season team this year, the Boston Bruins. My solution: raise the relative payout for regular-season success in relation to playoff success, and introduce firm penalties for bad standings results. Tanking must go! </p><p>I have no clue which NHL team will win the Stanley Cup: my standard answer is "the team with the hottest goalie". With regard to the NBA Finals, I should be humble, but I will go with Boston over Denver. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but the team with more playoff experience tends to win out, and in that match, it would the Celtics, as the Denver Nuggets have never made the NBA Finals, while the Celtics were there last year. In making those picks, I am looking past the 76ers, who have not been able to press the advantage of a road win in Game 1 vs. Boston; past the Miami Heat, who should defeat the Knicks, and who cannot be dismissed while Jimmy Butler is on the court; past the Phoenix Suns, who are currently showing against Denver the limitations of a team with two stars and a thin bench (with Chris Paul out); and in particular I am looking past the Golden State Warriors and Los Angeles Lakers, two star-studded teams beating each other up in an unprecedented second-round matchup of the #6 and #7 teams. </p><p>Back to baseball, I am very much encouraged by the early season look of the game. The dramatic preseason tourney of the World Baseball Classic (final: Japan defeats the US behind Unicorn Ohtani) was a good omen, and the quality of play in the majors has noticeably improved from this fan's perspective. Apart from the welcome reduction in the length of games, there is more hitting, more stolen bases, more scoring, but the top pitchers are still able to dominate. I am not a fan of the new rule prohibiting the extreme infield shift--it basically gives advantage to left-handed hitters, who are already advantaged. I am a fan of the larger bases--as I suggested, it provides a larger target for a runner sliding into second or third, thus basically eliminating the odious play where the fielder holds the tag on the runner if he leaves contact with the base for a moment. Maybe even more significant, though, is the rule limiting the pitcher's chances to throw over to hold the runner to two times between pitches. It was added to help shorten the game and remove boring non-events, but once the pitcher's thrown over once, the edge goes to the potential runner. </p><p>As for my Cincinnati Reds, they look somewhat improved, though pitching in the Great American Ballpark (which I will soon attend for the very first time) remains a challenge. They may yet overtake their chief rival for third place, the Pittsburgh Pirates, who started off way better than they should be. (I assume the St. Louis Cardinals will get it together after a slow start and pass both of them).</p><p>Finally, I feel duty-bound to mention that my team in the English Premier League, the Chelsea Football Club, has finally won a match, for the first time in months. I want to thank the interim manager, one of the Blues' alltime heroes, Frank Lampard, for his service. The 3-1 win over Bournemouth was played without the downpour which accompanied the grievously-dubbed King Charles III's ascension to the throne of Great Britain. Although Chuck is best seen as a transitional monarch, presumably to his more propitiously named son, who would then be William III, I'm thinking Charley will be the last before Scotland decamps from that once-great-Empire. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-46316064234619340552023-04-11T22:36:00.002-06:002023-04-22T10:38:28.715-06:00But Is It Appropriate?<p><b><i>It Was Balloon!</i></b></p><p> I read recently the theory that US foreign affairs are entirely determined by domestic politics. In which case our direction in an increasingly-critical global environment will certainly be directionless. </p><p>It is clear that in the last decade foreign policy doesn't even rise into consideration of voters. We did violate the titular command in the trendy 2019 movie "Don't Look Up" recently and saw, once again, that we are not alone on this planet, but that was a passing fancy, lost in the absurdity of our own navels. But I will address the arraignment later on. </p><p>Instead I want to dwell a bit on the stirrings abroad, and what I perceive we are actually doing in the world. </p><p>America is performing a new role on the world stage, still a featured role but no longer a star turn. It's not all about what we want or do; major events arise and resolve elsewhere, and we can engage or watch from backstage. You know we will be watching. </p><p>China wanted to be watching, too. They wanted a little-better resolution on that telemetry they were getting sent back from their satellites. Can you really blame them for sending that innocent balloon? Yes, they were sending back data the whole time. Yes, we were recording the data they were sending back for de-cryption efforts. Spy vs. Spy, remember that one (Mad Magazine)? </p><p>China's leadership have read their history books with the US policy of "containment" (of the Soviet Union), and they have announced they will not settle for it. Not unreasonably, they insist on the opportunity to compete in Africa, in South America, and they will make a move on Mexico before long. We should applaud their efforts in ending the warring between Saudi Arabia and Iran. We must allow their competition, unfair as their terms may seem. </p><p>China longs for the broad but lax regulation of the early WTO, as that was a business environment they could exploit. Things are different now, after the pandemic sliced through the CCP's omnipotence facade: once at the beginning, and once in the chaotic release of the lockdowns. The party is going to yield to jingoism if we block the trade aggressiveness that is coming. </p><p>We must insist on change, though, if we are truly to be more friendly. Xinjiang's penal colonies, for one. Tibet, for two. Hong Kong, for three. And we are not yet talking about the South China Sea, the East China Sea, or Taiwan. Those are matters for discussion, even if now is not the time. But we cannot buy any more products from the captive states, and we will provide funds to protect the rights of Hong Kong citizens in some ways that are beyond the eyes of the PRC. We make the commercial terms right for Taiwan to get all that it needs. We can guide that the long-term goal for Greater China is not annexation, or subjugation, or even assimilation and integration, but federation. </p><p>None of this suggests anything other than wary re-armament occurring in the Far Pacific. United, the challenge is readily met, but includes broad modernization and acts to increase readiness. Defensive readiness, which today is most expressed as accurate and deadly response capabilities. </p><p>And so we will. </p><p>There is one constant in American foreign policy, and it is that the commercial interests we have will be defended, just as we will act on behalf of our citizens who are endangered abroad. It is and always has been America First, in actuality if not in slogan-mongering. So, what's the big deal? </p><p>Biden's policies are a big (f-ing) one: 1) We will reassure our allies after the chaos of the Trump administration's policies; 2) We will keep the pressure on China, and on North Korea, without inviting conflict; and 3) We will defeat Putin, to spite Trump if nothing else. We will bleed him dry. </p><p>So, yeah, maybe that one is determined by domestic politics. And the first one, too. </p><p><b><i>Fraud</i></b></p><p>To be sure, misrepresentation is a big problem in our lives, something that affects the quality of our existence daily, through inconvenience if not worse. Adults are constantly bombarded with falsehood, with cheap tricks to make money off them, and promises that will never be believed, or fulfilled. We are numbed to these, but younger people are not. </p><p>How can we protect ourselves from entities which seek to take advantage of us? I suggest we legislate a requirement that content generated purely from automatic engines identify itself as such, even if subtly so (think: those fast-speaking disclaimers on the radio or tv). Violation of the law would be a misdemeanor with the penalty paid by its sponsor: "Impersonating a human". When a human reviews, edits, and authenticates themself on their own behalf or their entity, then this disclaimer falls off, and it becomes that person's owned product. It's a small requirement, though it may seem an impossible impediment. If we could get that, perhaps we could reinstate something like the Truth-in-Advertising standards that once existed. And then apply them to political campaigns. </p><p> The arraignment of Donald Trump in New York was a necessary first step, and nothing could be more appropriate than that the first charge against the ex-President was for fraud. He has perpetrated frauds throughout his career, and finally there was a DA ready to call him on it, criminally. </p><p>I imagine the Old Drumpfster with his finger, or something, in the dyke,* trying to hold back the flood, all by himself. He can't admit to anything on this old charge, now, though he might cop to the misdemeanor version once he has more serious, more dramatic charges to deal with.</p><p><b><i>Michele's Mistakes</i></b><b><i> </i></b></p><p>A fairly big story here in the state of New Mexico is a spate of vetoes of bills passed by the (Democratic-controlled) legislature by Democratic Governor Michele Lujan Grisham. These have been executed almost completely without comment from the Governor. </p><p>There are a variety of things she is cutting from their budgets and appropriations. A lot of it is in the category of tax expenditure. One that bites particularly sharply is a proposed credit (of $2500) for new electric vehicle purchase. It looks like a sellout; MLG has been re-elected recently and is term-limited. Very disappointing: I was giving her credit for the legalization of marijuana (now called "cannabis"); perhaps that was also merely an economic ploy, one called "getting the Texans' money, so it's not just for Colorado". </p><p>Did I mention that the state government is rolling in money? Never mind, I'm sure it's a temporary condition. </p><p><br /></p><p>*Maybe his putter? </p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-25277766280556235942023-04-11T20:01:00.003-06:002023-04-22T10:32:38.270-06:00"Play-in Tournament" Edition <p>As I write this, the NBA playoffs are beginning with their first game. This is a "Play-In" matchup between two teams in the middle of the Eastern Conference standings. The Atlanta Hawks and Miami Heat have both made surprise runs through the Eastern playoffs in recent memory, but now they are the number 7 and 8 seeds, going for a spot in the playoffs proper. They have much the same players since their past heroics; I'd say it is more like the top of the East--Milwaukee, Boston, and Philadelphia--have risen and left them behind. </p><p>At halftime of this game, Atlanta had produced an unexpected big lead (15 points, down from 23) . Unexpected since Miami is home, had a better regular-season record, and in particular had feasted on the Hawks in recent play. Instead, Atlanta showed an offense broadened beyond their star, Trae Young, while Miami's clutch performer, Jimmy Butler, was having a stinker, along with his teammates. Maybe this game isn't enough of a pressure matchup, as it's not an elimination game, and Butler could still rise in the consolation game (against the #9 vs. #10 winner) and carry them forward into the 8th spot. </p><p>This Play-in Tournament, as they call it, is not really a thing but an adjunct to the thing. There's no winner, just two teams getting to go to the next round. It's a concept that was started in the NCAA basketball tournament when they wanted to add a few more teams to their bracket beyond 64. For the NBA, it was an improvisation in the pandemic year of 2020, giving teams that were in contention for the playoffs (once play resumed after the initial shutdown) a fair chance to qualify. </p><p>Turns out, it was a good marketing concept, one that even helps with the league's perpetual problem with teams giving up during the regular season. It certainly doesn't eliminate it--the Dallas Mavericks and Mark Cuban, their owner, are under investigation for doing it too blatantly and clumsily in the last week, preferring a shot at a good lottery draft pick to an unlikely shot at a berth in the real playoffs. And the last-day scrubfest in the Eastern Conference, when all the slots were set, was not a good look. But, in general, more teams contending means more good competition toward the end. </p><p>This was exemplified in the Western Conference, where there is more parity and there was a frenzied battle for the last several playoff and play-in slots. Most of the close, important contests will be in the matchups in the West, at least until the expected Eastern semifinal between the Boston Celtics and the Philadelphia 76ers. That's true tonight, when the pregame focus clearly centered on the Lakers-Timberwolves game (like Atl-Mia, #7-#8), and a golden opportunity for the Lakers to redeem their regular-season shortcomings with an opening to go far (against #2, Memphis, missing their big men). For me, that will also be true tomorrow night, as we get a rare opportunity to see the most improved player in the league this year, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, of the Oklahoma City Thunder, #10 in the Western standings and playing at the Zion Williamson-less New Orleans Pelicans. </p><p>Basically, all the possible matchups in the West are interesting ones. The two that are likely to be most prolonged are the #6 vs. #3 and #7 vs. #2, both of which are likely to have the worse-seeded team as the betting favorites. #6 Golden State is the defending champions and seems poised to make another run, while #3 Sacramento is an emerging top team, but totally untested in the playoffs. #7 Lakers defeating #2 Grizzlies is only a bit more of a stretch, if we grant the Lakers the win tonight ahead of time. The superstar-filled showdown between the Los Angeles Clippers and the Phoenix Suns is the one that is most pivotal, though. </p><p>It is in the second round that we should expect to see the Denver Nuggets first challenged. Assuming the Nugs survive a 7-game series against the Play-in survivor, they would face the Suns-Clippers winners in the Western semifinals, which should be a TV highlight of the whole playoffs. As for the other semifinal and the Western final, it's much too hazy even foreseeing which teams will be playing in order to predict. I will go out on a limb, though, and say that the winner of the Eastern Conference semifinal between Boston and Philadelphia will win the championship this year. Even though Milwaukee will be favored in the Eastern final. </p><p>I rush to complete this post before the Atlanta-Miami game finishes: Miami came back to make it a contest. That's what's so good about the modern NBA games: they are so dynamic. But, it's looking good for the unexpected result, perhaps a harbinger for what is to come (parity certainly showed itself in the NCAA's this year). </p><p><br /></p><p><b><i>Baseball:</i></b> We are about 10 games into the season. The big bags are great for the SB. The game is surprisingly healthy, not to mention the classic World Baseball Classic before the season. We add to the usual suspects (Astros, Braves, Yankees, Dodgers) the rising Padres, the aspiring Brewers and Angels (and maybe the Diamondbacks, instead of the Giants this time). </p><p>Hitting is rising again, even running to some extent, but pitching gets teams through the playoffs. I see a Braves-Astros Series. </p><p><b><i>Soccer a/k/a Futbol:</i></b> Chelsea is having one of its worst seasons in recent memory, about at the pre-Roman Abramovich '90's level of mid-table mediocrity. They have one more chance for their overstuffed roster to achieve glory, as they open a Champions League quarterfinal series away at Real Madrid tomorrow. A draw would give Chelsea a chance to surprise by winning at home, and there is no more Away-goals tiebreaker, so I would expect the punchless Blues to play for a scoreless tie, then freak out after Real Madrid, a perennial Champions League killer, opens the scoring. </p><p>At least I will get to see Frank Lampard on the Chelsea sidelines once again. </p><p>With Chelsea's fade in the Premier League to 10th or so, I am compelled to root for Arsenal to hold on against the titanic Manchester City squad. They still have six-point lead, so they can even afford to lose in the showdown game. And to tie against Chelsea in their upcoming game. But that's it!!</p><p>P.S. Jimmy got to the free-throw line a bunch, as he always will do, but Atlanta held on for the win. </p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-43701391587802642142023-04-11T12:43:00.003-06:002023-04-22T10:26:58.737-06:00Modest Proposal <p><i>The essay below was submitted to the Taos News for the reader submission feature "My Turn". Though it was accepted (automatically), it was neither published nor acknowledged by any staff member. I reduced my essay to fit their 750-word limit. There is more I would say, but I'll limit myself to the following: </i></p><p>The bad news is that the state legislative session--very brief in New Mexico, with the legislators unpaid!--is over. The good news is that I was really aiming at getting the discussion started this year, while the pointer is at the 2024 election. </p><p>This violates slightly my vow to avoid discussing national electoral politics in 2023, but only slightly: I am not advocating this kind of legislation for most states, as either their Congressional districts are overly gerrymandered, or they have so many Electoral Votes that giving up all-or-nothing would be self-defeating for now. As for New Mexico, I could prove that this reform would hurt neither party and would be an improvement in our democracy, if only a local and somewhat symbolic one.</p><p><b><i><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></i></b></p><blockquote><p><b><i><span style="font-size: medium;">New Mexico Should Go the Maine-Nebraska Route</span></i></b></p><p>My suggestion for the current New Mexico legislature session
is a nonpartisan one: Our legislature can
change the way our state’s Electoral Votes (EV) are counted in Presidential
elections, so that each Congressional district’s vote goes to the candidate who
receives the most people’s votes there.
This is what Maine and Nebraska do today, and those two states have
derived benefits for doing so. New
Mexico could do the same.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Constitutionally-mandated means of electing our
President is a clumsy kluge that works erratically, sometimes not at all. Among many proposed remedies to make our
Presidential outcomes fairer, the leading one right now bypasses the College’s
role and awards the Presidency to the national popular vote winner. This fits the idea of democratic election,
and New Mexico has approved it, but it has the defect that it is stalled along
party lines short of its goal, seemingly permanently. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The worst distortion of popular will in our Electoral
College system comes from states giving all their EV to the statewide winner regardless of the
margin, the so-called winner-take-all rule.
Except that it isn’t a rule. There’s zero mention in the Constitution. To
change that practice is down to Congress, or barring that, the state
legislatures (and governors to sign it). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maine and Nebraska have done so, each for their own
reasons. These two relatively small
states in population each have one Congressional district that’s sufficiently
competitive to draw national attention in the Presidential race, where every
Electoral Vote is precious. In 2020, the
Democratic ticket visited that district of Nebraska, and President Trump went
to northern Maine to campaign. The
result in the election was a narrow win in those districts going against the
statewide result. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is where New Mexico comes in. Many states have their Congressional
boundaries as a result of “gerrymandering”, where districts are redrawn,
distorting House representation away from the statewide balance; these days, that’s done by reducing
competitive House seats. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">New Mexico, in its 2020 redistricting exercise, went a
different direction. Although New
Mexico’s legislature did some engineering of our districts, they created more
competitive ones, rather than non-competitive ones. This is somewhat true of our own 3<sup>rd</sup>
Congressional District, but especially so with the 2<sup>nd</sup> District,
which proved in 2022 to be one of the closest in the nation. I guarantee that if our Second Congressional
District were able to exercise its Presidential vote independently of the
statewide votes, it would rise in importance, becoming a special area of focus for
both parties, bringing attention and ultimately real benefit to those residing
in that region of the state. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Time for me to be real:
As a registered Democrat, why would I advocate for something that might cost
my party an Electoral Vote in 2024? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Three reasons: 1) Benefit
to the Second is bound to help the state of New Mexico, overall. 2) It would set an example for the whole
nation, rising above partisanship to do something positive about our Electoral College
problems. 3) It is, objectively, a more
accurate way to map popular votes to Electoral Votes than the current
winner-take-all approach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is not just some trick on Republicans’ behalf, either: the Democrats would gain two district-level EV
to a greater level of certainty than they have now. That’s the thing about this reform: at least in the case of New Mexico, its
effect is fair and non-partisan. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, should New Mexico’s reform give impetus for Congress to
legislate a nationwide reform (no amendment required)? Well, there are at least a couple of problems.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First is the notion 96% of states share, that winner-take-all gives them more influence.
This is like the joke about the town in Minnesota where everyone is
above average. Both the largest states,
taken for granted by the dominant party in them, and the smallest states, with
their over-representation but still minor contributions, are deluded in this
way. A few states truly have
disproportionate influence on the outcome through winner-take-all: They are the middle-sized swing states, currently
Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. A
reform that reduces the tension and unbearable deluge of phone calls and TV ads in those might be surprisingly popular there. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Besides gerrymandering, there could be a concern that, because
it would make third-party EV likely again, the reform could potentially lead to
recourse to the dreaded decision by the House. Any Congressional legislation for
district-based Electoral Votes must include improvements there.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>In the meantime, New Mexico should make its change and reap
the benefits, starting in 2024</p><p></p></blockquote><p><br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-55204863122675941492023-01-06T09:24:00.001-07:002023-01-06T09:24:57.231-07:00Disorder in the House<p> I give credit to local radio DJ Brad Hockmeyer for pulling out and playing this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siqJq-8Sr6U" target="_blank">cut</a> by Warren Zevon, from <i>The Wind</i>, the last album release before his passing in 2003. Besides being a great rock n roll song, it captures this moment of the rise of anarchic sentiment in this country, two years downstream from the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection. </p><p>The <a href="https://genius.com/Warren-zevon-disorder-in-the-house-lyrics" target="_blank">lyrics</a> are quirky and hilarious ("even the lhasa apso seems to be ashamed"), but here's the serious angle: </p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Programme, Arial, sans-serif;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Programme, Arial, sans-serif;">I just got my paycheck</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Programme, Arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Programme, Arial, sans-serif;">I'm gonna paint the whole town gray</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Programme, Arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Programme, Arial, sans-serif;">Whether it's a night in Paris</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Programme, Arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Programme, Arial, sans-serif;">Or a Fresno matinee</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Programme, Arial, sans-serif;" /><a class="ReferentFragmentdesktop__ClickTarget-sc-110r0d9-0 jvutUp" href="https://genius.com/4221064/Warren-zevon-disorder-in-the-house/Its-the-home-of-the-brave-and-the-land-of-the-free-where-the-less-you-know-the-better-off-youll-be" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7d8fe8; font-family: Programme, Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: calc((1.5em - 1.125rem) / 2) 0px; position: relative; scroll-margin: calc(max(10vw, 0px) + 3rem + 1.5em); text-decoration-line: none;"><span class="ReferentFragmentdesktop__Highlight-sc-110r0d9-1 jAzSMw" style="background-color: #e9e9e9; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; margin: 0px; padding: calc((((1.5em - 1.125rem) / 2) - 0.0625rem) - 0.75px) 0px calc((((1.5em - 1.125rem) / 2) - 0.0625rem) - 0.25px);">It's the home of the brave<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />And the land of the free<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Where the less you know<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />The better off you'll be</span></a></p><p></p></blockquote><p>I'm not worrying about the stalemate, really: If there were a real need for the House to act in these days (like a declaration of war or a Defense budget proposal), they'd get it together in a moment. This is about a bunch of showboating extremists who have found a way to get public attention for their rants, and they want it to continue for the next two years. Anything that can gain the support of the unified Republican Members (imagine there could be such a thing) would have no chance in the Senate or with Joe Biden's veto pen. His only chance will be to find some areas of agreement with some Democratic Members. </p><p>What Kevin McCarthy needs to do is tell the rebels, at some point in the next days, that this is their last chance, that after that he will begin to treat with Democrats. It is very tempting for him--his one and only true career ambition, to be listed in the honorable annals of Speakers--and it is so close. There are two ways for him to go: one would be a minimal agreement for some number of Democrats to vote "present" (30 or 40, I'd say) which would allow Kevin to become Speaker if he can retain his 200 supporters, the other would be a more radical coalition approach with a portion of his party and most of the Democratic votes. The latter might require him to agree to share House governance rules that are currently also being debated with the extremists.</p><p>Either requires direct negotiation with Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries, or his designated choice--there aren't going to be breakaway Democratic Members he can seduce for the additional votes he needs. Here's a summary of what Jeffries should expect: </p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Whatever concessions McCarthy was making to his extremists are cancelled;</li><li>No election deniers will be named to any House committees;</li><li>A free vote on the John Lewis Voting Right Act; and </li><li>McCarthy's commitment to a timely vote on raising the debt ceiling and his support to pass it. </li></ol><p></p><p>I don't think the Democrats really can ask for more, at least in the minimal case, and #1 and #2 will be an easy agreement. Some of the proposed measures designed to allow more participation from backbench Members may also be agreeable to both parties. </p><p><br /></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-4492978913323713952023-01-02T14:56:00.018-07:002023-01-03T09:08:38.935-07:00World Cup, and Other Games Afoot<p><b><i>The Global Footie Floodtide</i></b></p><p>I saw, but did not read, the article in The Atlantic recommending a boycott of the Qatar World Cup in November. With all respect to the esteemed author, I already knew the arguments, and it didn't matter. </p><p>I'm sure most fans of the game felt the same way. Notions that FIFA is corrupt, that the host country is undeserving, and that the host country is pushing their workers too hard against an unrealistic schedule--all of those have been raised often in past Cup experience. FIFA, Qatar, guilty as charged, I'm sure. As an example of excessive extravagance and waste, I cite those beautiful stadia--what good are they, now? </p><p>I watched most of it, without guilt. (At least the ones starting after 7 a.m. MST, which were the great majority of them.) The competition was excellent, real effort throughout. In those rare games without two fully engaged, motivated teams the results showed. </p><p>The tournament was full of those exciting moments with one attacker going head-to-head with the goalie. In live play, they arose most often through the counter-attack, but also there were all those penalty kicks, both the regulation ones and then the match tiebreakers in the elimination rounds. Not so many goals from set pieces, own goals and deflections, or ball-pressure-driven planned chaos in the goal area, this time around. </p><p>The Cup leads uniquely to an identification of the star player with the national team and thus with the nation, and this year's tourney played that to advantage. Number one for me was Mbappe (France), again. It will be interesting over the longer run to see if he can challenge the late superstar Pele's three World Cup wins, having come so close to his second. Neymar (Brazil) and Harry Kane (England) had their moments to shine before ultimate disappointment, as did personal favorite Luka Modric (Croatia).</p><p>The team that was the potential mold-breaker was Netherlands (?) Not their defeat of our Christian Pulisic (USA); that was according to form. The Dutch team's game with eventual Cup champion Leonel Messi (Argentina) in the quarterfinals was critical to the tournament, especially when Croatia upset Brazil later in that round (due to some bad luck and a hot goalie)+ The Orange's lack of a single 'shooting star' showed in that showdown, until substitute Wout Weghorst scored twice in the last 10 minutes to send the game to extra time. Then, in the penalties, it showed when first taker was their captain, defenseman Virgil Van Dyk, who missed, en route to a penalty-kick rout. </p><p>I do feel their day will come, maybe in 2026 if Cody Gakpo rises to become the star by then. The youthful USMNT performed well, and if Pulisic develops better working partnerships (maybe with Aaronson?), with home-field advantage they could shoot to match Morocco's surprise run to the semifinals this year. That would be two full steps up, but it's possible if the team can maintain its positive momentum. Remember the historical pattern, though (broken only once, in 2014): if the World Cup is in Europe, a European team wins; if elsewhere, a South American team. </p><p><b><i>Drops of The Other Foot</i></b></p><p>I want to give a shout of acclaim to big-time college football for doing something right--that is, if they follow through. The planned expansion of their playoffs from four teams all the way to 12 is a bold move that I salute, both from the standpoint of broadening that competition and improving their marketing. </p><p>It (the CFP, the College Football Playoff) certainly was in the best light on New Years' Eve with the two semifinal playoff games, proving that there is life beyond the SEC and Big 10 (and Clemson, if you wish) and showcasing the drama as never before. Purists will point out that the scores, 51-45 and 42-41, reflect massive and frequent defensive lapses alongside some wonderful offensive execution, but making way for offense to shine is the game now, echoing current NFL practice. </p><p>I watched most of those two games on ESPN's experimental "Skycast" telecast, and it is a phenomenon. No commentators, just the stadium announcer and crowd noise, with the visuals provided by the cameras on the overhead wires, facility with which (to follow action and individuals or zoom in) is now first-rate. Instant replays come in through a side box; the bottom line shows some summary stats and the previous play result. It is much more like "watching a game" then the usual "watching a telecast of the game". The downside is that I expect it would only work at certain stadiums at this point. </p><p>As for the NFL, this is the season when I do watch. The playoffs seem to be later each year; they certainly are larger, as they go from 12 to 14 teams. The trick in this planning exercise (post-season sizing) is to bring in all of the teams you might want, without bringing in too many embarrassments. With expanded playoffs, you have the chance that a hot team could barely make it, but then have the momentum for a possible surprise run, something which is necessary for general fan interest. It looks like there will be competition for that "coveted 7th spot" (a probable first-round loser) in each of the NFL Conference playoffs, which would fulfill the alternate objective, providing some focus for the final weekend of the regular season. * It doesn't always work that way: this year, baseball's playoff spots were fairly cut and dried at the margin, but the ones who made it in last were worthwhile once the postseason began. </p><p><b><i>Round Ball, Solid Floor</i></b></p><p><i style="font-weight: bold;">..</i>and a horizontal, round goal 10 feet off the ground. The simplicity of the offensive scheme in basketball gives great advantage to the prospect of scoring (goaltending not allowed!), so the real challenge is to play effective defense (without fouling). That applies especially to the NBA playoffs, which is the true objective. One could be justified in tuning out the NBA regular season, though I love the game too much for that. The Top 16 playoff approach that has been in place for decades (and criticized as long for being too broad) is now even more expansive, with 20 teams gaining a postseason: a team need only finish in the top 10 of its conference (out of 15) to have a chance, though the real game is to finish in the top 6 of the conference and avoid the deadly "play-in" round. </p><p>Whether by design or accident, the league's conference competitions seem to have sorted themselves around that first-6/top-10 scheme. As an example, the Eastern Conference playoffs, long an afterthought in the NBA Finals tournament, now should feature five championship-worthy teams, and a spirited battle for 6th (my pick would be Cleveland). Boston and Milwaukee are proven factors in the Finals picture, and Brooklyn, Philadelphia, and Miami would qualify as well, if they should emerge from the regular season intact. Meanwhile, the Western Conference lacks standout teams so far, as recent conference champions Phoenix and defending NBA champs Golden State have regressed, so it seems headed for a 10-team standings mudfest in the final weeks of the season and through the play-in round.. </p><p>Tuning out the regular season in college basketball seems even more appropriate; not much occurs before the New Year worth noting. College basketball is a coaches' game, and a game of defensive organization, something that has to be rebuilt each season. Turnover is so great that it takes a couple of months of regular-season games for the teams that can jell into tourney contenders to play enough together in order to do so. At least it's that way for my team, the U. of Kentucky, and John Calipari's "one-and-done" guys. This year it's different, though: the Wildcats return last year's college Player of the Year Oscar Tshiebwe, a bulky post scorer and ace rebounder--who can shoot free throws, too! Somehow they seem to be having the same problems, though, and we'll see whether they can play in March.</p><p><b><i>Easiest Prediction: PredictIt to Die</i></b></p><p>Unless there is some dramatic, unexpected reversal in Federal commodities regulation policy, the domestic online political prediction marketplace PredictIt will come to an end very soon. February 15 is the end date for all trading; no new markets have been added in several months and, with the midterm elections markets finally all settled, less than two dozen remain, few with any real interest from participants. The last World markets (i.e., scope outside the US), where I liked to hang out, closed with the New Year. </p><p> I made about 40% gain on my portfolio in this year's midterm elections. That's not really very satisfactory, given that I anticipated correctly the outcome of 90% of the contested statewide elections , as well as the overall results. I did too much hedging, in the dismal weeks before the vote, and wasted money on dreamy longshot hopes (Mandela Barnes, Tim Ryan, Cheri Beasley, the exotic R-Senate/D-House outcome, etc.). That's endgame behavior for you. </p><p>My approach all along, refined by a disastrous flame-out (on a 'sure thing') in the Rasmussen Markets of 2008, was for long-term survival and indulging my desires, conditioned by good sense and risk management, as a low-investment hobby, a/k/a cheap entertainment. Given this, I did a fair amount of analysis, no research at all, and a lot of shit-posting in the robustly incorrect Comments areas. So I survived and enjoyed, at least until this timely but premature demise of the site which we must now expect.**</p><p></p><p><b>Game of the Year</b></p><p>The full-fledged release of Online Sadistic Whist surpasses all else that occurred in 2022. It is now open to all comers, in limited release. We will happily provide details; please respond here. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='319' height='276' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwzx40zLLcP7GMyVXz-fPmR7qZGBSxWWEEs5ymYAwFx6tZnADrarqKib4I7E0HtmTwApMq6kl-iYro' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>+The other game which shaped the finals was England-France, the one that I missed watching due to other commitments.</p><p>* The other last-week focus the NFL seeks, and apparently will get this year, is the battle for the 1st spot, which is truly to be coveted as it is now the only one getting a first-round bye. </p><p>** The following is my prediction on the hottest topic there: What will be the resolution on the dozen or so markets going beyond Feb. 15? (None has been announced, and the time draws near.) The calculation which is presented as "Market Investment"for each market--taking into account the risk mitigation from multiple No bets--will be returned to traders, just a few weeks after the close of trading. </p><p> Cash withdrawn before then will be subject to the 5% withdrawal fee, but that money will not be, as the PredictIt managers would want to avoid the charge of profit-taking, which I suspect is the main reason the CFTC has revoked their continuing operation. It was billed as a research project, and it will provide oodles of data to review the realities of mass prediction. If they behave, and close down without scandal, they might be permitted to reopen again someday, with a slightly-changed economic model. </p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10594493.post-46497499012367842632022-11-15T20:15:00.003-07:002022-11-18T21:03:13.213-07:00We are Not a Nation of Laws<p><i><span face="cnnsans, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, Utkal, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.4px;">Understanding what it means if the facts and the evidence are there, and they decide not to prosecute – how do we then call ourselves a nation of laws?</span><span face="cnnsans, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, Utkal, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.4px;"> </span>Liz Cheney quote in CNN Interview, published Aug. 4, 2022. </i></p><p>We are clearly a nation of men, not of laws. The old saying is an aspiration, just as democracy is an aspiration. Justice depends on those who must enforce the law, or not, and for which laws. </p><p>It used to be exclusively the province of men. As in, no women. That has changed., at least in terms of active participation. We still have no way to bring the intelligence of young people into the formula for self-governing, as our civic education in democracy prepares them poorly and our system changes but slowly, if at all. </p><p>But the real point is that the US of A has always chosen to be on the edge of lawlessness, or if not that, lawless on its edges. Those edges, or frontiers, were always moving, and absorbed our aggressive tendencies until the 20th Century. Then we had world war to absorb them, or most of them. Some leaked out in "racial" riots, and in lone-wolf-type political assassinations. </p><p>This American tendency toward weak observance of the law and prevalence of violence is not the norm for a society said to be advanced. There are plenty of examples, other nations, where the laws are clear, and enforcement is thorough and efficient, disobedience rare and incarceration even more rare. Many of those have full democratic exercise; others maintain the vote but have less free speech and economic liberty. </p><p>Self-restraint of the people is critical for lawful societies. Too much disobedience is simply uncontrollable for the authorities. </p><p><br /></p><p>As for the previous question, though, there are so many pending investigations of Trump at this time, that surely there will be at least one indictment--possibly several, once the retaining wall of respect for past holders of the Presidential office has been breached. The announcement or whatever of his 2024 Presidential run should be no impediment, and in fact it ends any need for the social restraint generally shown toward excoriating ex-Presidents, especially one-term losers. Instead of doing something good for the country, or humanity or the future of the planet, he continues to suck money away from suckees and shows a willingness to carry the ludicrous con forward. As for the DOJ, the threat of his forever-imminent announcement certainly did not spur them to immediate action. </p><p>Mere indictment, and I mean criminal indictment(s), civil suits being necessary but insufficient, clears way too low a bar. I want to see convictions, even if plea-bargained (I would think avoiding prosecution under the Espionage Act would be important for his future employers). Trump's card is his own conviction that there would never be a jury that would vote unanimously against him; I think if the jurisdiction is properly chosen (like Atlanta, maybe, for his Georgia vote tampering) it is a possibility. Again, though, we need the heavy stuff, perhaps the insurrection itself if the right persons will turn, if we want to change the course of the story he tells himself: so far, he's still free and making money, so everything's basically fine. </p><p><b><i>Lawlessness is Central to Our Culture</i></b></p><p>It seems obvious to some, but we are slow to recognize to what degree we fixate on the borderline between legal and extra-legal, and beyond. The Western, which almost always turns on that question of how we act when we are outside the control of the civilized world. The Gangster epics, which are all about the spaces between what we do in life and the law, and the kind of people who occupy them. All the varieties of cops-and-robbers, including so many that make heroes out of criminals, even assassins who kill for money.</p><p>Okay, you may say, that's just Hollywood, Dreamland, the sublimation of desire to survive in the real world with its stifling conformity. This ignores the American tendencies to live outside the rules in our daily lives (I excuse attorneys from reading the following). Smoke pot, drive intoxicated, exceed the speed limit, fail to come to a full stop, cheat on taxes. Everybody does it, or some of it--but not everyone everywhere. </p><p>In many countries, people obey the law because it is the law and they know it. In America, people obey the law best when it suits them, randomly when it coincides with their intentions to be free. </p><p>Remember the line in "America, the Beautiful" at the end of the second verse : <br /></p><div style="text-align: center;"><i>"THY LIBERTY IN LAW"</i></div><br />I think that's the way we want it to be, that in our liberty of actions we choose to obey the law, and that the law protects our liberty. As for the latter, it's a whole other subject, but let's just agree that the reality is that the law is not evenly applied to all in that regard: Some people's liberties are more protected--we could generalize and say it's the people who can afford good lawyers. <p></p><p>Do we choose to obey the law? There's a favorite defense American lawbreakers employ, that they didn't know it was against the law--essentially Trump's play in the Mar-a-Lago document theft case. It's useless in a court as a defense, which presumes you know the law: in some sense the law must be known to expect obedience, as our justice system does. Sometimes, no doubt, we know, whether or not we'd ever admit it. </p><p>Overall, though, I would say our tendency is that when it comes down to it, we choose liberty. </p><p><b></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhskD12X4jZJvYOhaJRJy3zMpOuLRf4VhBVkcNkCHUQOrx_kSFmivB-mJCESpH2eR4rFurAtdRA3t8KaUk6n3OE0CsI4YjioXR7OoifNL1eVBvTmP_6MrZOt2cxS-fb6Gwfa7FhIoHNF1kjDG7WqWAsFfGVKzoizGzUyyEiIJcTL-vp775Jjw/s4032/20211116_105152.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhskD12X4jZJvYOhaJRJy3zMpOuLRf4VhBVkcNkCHUQOrx_kSFmivB-mJCESpH2eR4rFurAtdRA3t8KaUk6n3OE0CsI4YjioXR7OoifNL1eVBvTmP_6MrZOt2cxS-fb6Gwfa7FhIoHNF1kjDG7WqWAsFfGVKzoizGzUyyEiIJcTL-vp775Jjw/s320/20211116_105152.jpg" width="320" /></a></b></div><b><br /></b><p></p>Chin Shih Tanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00852129729584273400noreply@blogger.com0