The Most Critical '26 Electoral Contest

 In the desperately important election this year, every closely contested race is a battle worth fighting.  There are a few state governor contests of that ilk, something like 10 different Senate races this year that could be considered competitive*, but not too many more House races than that, post-gerrymandering war, and probably a few hundred seats in state legislatures across the country.  There is the overall contest for control of the House of Representatives and for the Senate, and those two outcomes are massively important , but each is the result of a number of different elections, so one can hardly focus on those, in themselves--it is necessary to go into the next level down and look at what will drive those victories, or defeats. 

The race that I think is most critical, though, is the Senate contest in Texas, between Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton.  The latter candidate was just nominated by his party's voters in a run-off election that ran off 24-year incumbent John Cornyn (who will remain as a dangerous zombie Senator whose emotional status is uncertain, like Bill Cassidy in Louisiana, similarly jettisoned from the Titanic Trumpist Tragedy. (ETTTTTS)).  Paxton is the most Trumpist viable candidate ever, rating super highly on both the loyalty and corruption scales. Texas is only rated as something like a 35-40% chance for Democrats to win in the prediction markets. 

It's only one Senate seat, and so the chances that it will be decisive are maybe one in 10 (but a little higher since the Platner controversy has made gaining the Maine seat more uncertain), but the implications are much greater.  Talarico is not just an unusual talent, squeaky-clean, and uniquely suited to be the Democratic candidate in Texas, due to his convincing Christian-but-not-Christian-nationalist vibe, but a potential national leader--in a Democratic administration, like Buttigieg is, even if he isn't able to get elected this year. 

Beyond that, though, the Texas race has possibly decisive and enduring effect on the big picture:  control of the Federal government at the top. The thing is, we are used to looking at a certain set of midsize "swing states" as a fixed, or slowly changing, decisive group for purposes of Presidential elections.  States like New Hampshire, say, or Iowa, may be somewhat susceptible to flipping from one election to another, but they are too small in Electoral College votes to be at all likely to changing the outcome.+   We know the suspects; it starts with Pennsylvania, then it goes to Michigan, Wisconsin, and more recently Georgia and Arizona (the last two replacing Ohio, which went red, and Minnesota, now seemingly safely blue). 

There has not been a really big state that has looked even possibly marginal in its outcome since California and New York fell off the cliff for Republicans in statewide elections.  The only other states in that category are Florida, which seemingly remains inexplicably beyond redemption, and Texas.  If Texas were to become a "purple" state where the outcome of a Presidential election there is not certain, it would have a huge effect on the numbers--of Electoral College votes, and of spending on the contest, too. 

I'm way ahead of myself, but a Mark Kelly-James Talarico ticket, Kelly promising to serve one term, could carry the swing states and Texas and lead to the kind of 350+ EV rout that is needed (in 2028, or 2032 if we must defer our dreams) in order to put the GOP in its place, which is as a regional party no longer a threat to destroy our Federal government and our Constitution.  That would make reforms of the kind needed possible. 

* In order of likelihood of Democrats winning the contested seats (+4 net result needed):  New Hampshire (to retain vacating Democratic seat),  North Carolina (flip, Republican vacating), Michigan (again, to retain vacating Democratic seat), Alaska (flip, strong Democratic candidate), Iowa (Republican vacating), Ohio (flip of appointed Republican Senator), Maine (flip, with Platner being only moderately damaged in Maine voters' eyes), Texas (flip, vacating Republican due to the primary result), then ones like Florida (weak appointed Senator), South Carolina (good candidate flipping on flippant Lindsay Graham), and finally longshots in South Dakota and Louisiana.  Ranking above Florida are Nebraska and Montana, where the strong candidate who might flip the seat is running as an Independent..   I'm assuming Georgia is safe for Jon Ossoff against a disorganized Republican opposition.  He's also a Talarico-type rising star. 

 From this list, you could see that I rate Texas as the sixth-most-likely to flip, and thus not absolutely necessary, if Democrats hold their seats and come through in Maine, Iowa, and Ohio.  I'm counting on North Carolina and Alaska to get things started.  

+ Unless there is no majority in the Electoral College and it goes to the House, where the Constitution gives each state's delegation one vote.  That remains very improbable as long as there are only two major party candidates winning all the states (last time that didn't happen was 1968).  

There's Got to Be

 Wednesday, November 4 -- 11 am.

At this moment, there appears to be a good chance Biden could exactly reverse Trump's elected E.C. votes from 2016*, which would be a nice irony.    

That would require that Biden adds to his current 227 EV  Arizona (11) Nevada (6), Georgia (16), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), and Pennsylvania (20)--that leaves Maine CD-2 (1), Alaska (3) and North Carolina (15).  All of which are not only possible, but the most likely outcomes.  With the exception of PA, for which we just don't know at this point. 

The great thing about that 306-232 margin continuing to be likely is that the Biden lead, or hold on 270,  is not imperiled by the potential reversal of one state.   One major condition is Georgia, which should be determined by the size and shape of the next release of votes, mostly from Atlanta's county and its suburban De Kalb County, expected by the end of the day.  My rough calculations suggest that may bring the margin within 10k votes, one way or the other, and make Georgia the closest of all the close races. 

As for the Senate, the less said the better.  I hedged most of the close states on Predictit.org, successfully (more about that later, maybe), but clearly I suffered in markets for the net change in seats and control of the Senate.  I played it as being a 60-40 Democratic chance; this outcome was on the low end, from the Democratic side, of that 40% of probability. It could've been worse:  Peters could have lost Michigan.  

*(so, prior to the final totals changed by 'faithless electors'), 

Saturday, November 7 - 8:45 p.m. 

 You lost! You're a LOSER!!  Now, Get Lost, Loser!

Now that I've said that, I'm going to turn over a new leaf.  I will never again call for Trump to be burned as a witch. The demonization must end, as our President-Elect has said. 

Someone who can never admit their weakness is destined always to be a loser.  Trump is the proof of that. 

I don't believe that The Donald will be back as a serious national electoral candidate, but there will be someone who will try to claim the Trumpist mantle, jettisoning as much of the stinking baggage that hangs from it.  Probably someone who is able to learn from the mistakes.  

But can that person win the nomination in 2024?  I do not venture to guess what the mindset of the Republican base will be then, but I got a very strong reminder that base is always larger than I may think. 

2024 will be a challenge as great as this one.  But first 2022--and 2021.  The fact there are two races in the runoff in January for Georgia is the best news possible--it means that white Democrats and black ones can compete for turnout to break the Southern runoff schneid.  Assume any polls will understate Republican turnout by 5-7% (the David Duke Effect). 

Saturday, November 7 - 11:25 p.m. 

Kate McKinnon's portrayal of Rudy Giuliani, post-election, in the  classic Gilda Ratner Rosannadanna guest commenter on Weekend Update role, is one for the history of video comedy.  Dave Chappelle's monologue will probably get more attention, as it was outlandish, as promised, but her properly over-the-top impersonation topped Carrey's Biden (he got to do the Big L!), Rudolph's pitch-perfect Kamala, Chappelle's own impressive Dennis Haybert, and Baldwin's impressionistic Whiny Loser.  

They Can Do No Right (continuing thread)

Grover Norquist and Donald Trump shared a dream, and it has come to life in the form of the Republicans' tax bill.   It combines a hatred of public services (Norquist) with faulty economics (Trump).  Every day reveals new monstrosities hidden within it.  It favors fossil fuels and looks to handicap renewable forms of energy; it also opens the Arctic to spoilage through oil drilling. It is actively hostile to our prized higher education system in a variety of ways.  It will create a situation in which the Republican Congress will be "forced" by budget restrictions to do things like cut the cost of living adjustment for Social Security, and find cuts in Medicare.  Of all the many bad provisions, the worst I have heard yet is one that would facilitate dark money political contributions (not publicly reported) becoming tax-deductible.

I don't expect that it will matter that the tax cuts for individuals will fade out while the corporate tax cuts are permanent:  most of these provisions will be repealed when the Democrats regain control, which I expect will happen in the 2020 elections.  But that will be OK for the Drumpfsters; their intention is merely to facilitate some massive short-term wealth for themselves; in Trump's case, it would seem that the key provisions are the reduction in pass-through taxes for his businesses and in the reduction or abolition of the estate tax.  Then the oligarchs will be able to watch from secured enclaves as the inflation-recession-social unrest which will eventually follow from this abomination of public policy continues to consume our democracy, even after the venal scumbags are gone from office.

The Republicans' conference committee will hash out the relatively minor differences between the two bills; things like repealing the individual mandate (added by the Senate, it would indirectly save a few hundred million in health care subsidies, which can be plowed back into more benefits for the rich) will be taken on; the conference committee report can not be filibustered by Democrats;  the compromises offered to Sen. Collins for her vote can now be ignored (unless McCain or Flake flake off from their pro-Tax Scam votes); the only question is when.  I am betting against it being before the end of the year, inspired by the general incompetence, but the odds are against me.

Moving on:  What do you do if you have a piece of responsible gun legislation, backed by both parties, and even by the NRA, to close loopholes such as the ones that facilitated the massacres in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs?  Why, pollute it with a ridiculous "reciprocity" provision allowing the worst concealed carry states' laws to prevail over more reasonable ones!

What do you do if there is bipartisan agreement, and a prompting from President Drumpf himself, to provide legal status for Dreamers to remain in the US (through the so-called DACA program)? Why, pollute it with a requirement for Democrats to fund the stupid, totally unneeded, provocative and dysfunctional Wall with Mexico! That way, none of these things ever come to pass, and Trump can blame the failure to fulfill his campaign promise on Democrats' unreasonable demands.

Alabama Values
Roy Moore says that he wants to "bring Alabama values to Washington", as though that would be some sort of improvement.  Tonight, we will find out which are the values a majority of Alabama voters may have.  I don't think it's a question of Moore's State Christianity advocacy:  that would probably pass easily there.  Instead, it seems to be a question of whether picking up sixteen-year-old girls is consistent with their values, and the answer is not clear-cut.

As I have said before, do not trust the polls on this one:  people will lie to pollsters about their willingness to vote for the child molester.    I suspect that the Fox News poll which has Jones ahead by 10 points that came out yesterday (!)  was what i would call a troll-poll:  designed to draw out Republican fence-sitters and make Democrats complacent.  It is easy to produce such a distorted result through sequencing questions strategically:  Q1:  Would you vote for a candidate who is accused of molesting children?  Q2:  Will you vote for Roy Moore? 

In predictit.org, I have a small amount of money on Jones (at 20% probability), hoping against my expectations.  In other bets, I am expecting a margin in the 4-8% range, that 5-10% of votes will be write-ins, and that Moore will win Mobile county but lose Madison county (Huntsville area). 

Again, this is a very important election--no comparison to the previous special election House races in its importance for the 2018 campaign cycle, which has now officially begun.  Even in a wave election, which 2018 may well be, the Democrats will be hard-pressed to take back the Senate.  This is because of the numbers of seats they must defend, and the level of difficulty for many of those states, as opposed to the relatively few opportunities.  More on this later.

Trump Stuff
His slimy stance with regard to the Moore candidacy tells it all:  no principles, no consistency, even of message.  Confused by conflicting advice, his actions accentuates the contradictions in his brand.  His interests compel him to seek that vote in the Senate; his inclinations drive him to believe the man against his female accusers; but he'd just as soon not be seen in public next to the creep.  Still, the Moore campaign, and the resignation announcements of Rep. Conyers and Sen. Franken have revived the issue of Trump's own accusers, who may finally have their day to air their grievances, apart from the chaos of last year's campaign.   I don't expect these to bring him down--he certainly would not have the dignity or sense of shame to resign, as Franken has done--just as I don't expect the Russia investigation to lead to impeachment, but I am encouraged by the wear and tear on his psyche and body and the paralysis these things tend to create in his White House.

My ranking of the most likely ways we will get rid of him:  1)  Defeat in 2020 by Democrats; 2) Rejection for re-nomination by the Republicans after the disastrous 2018 election; 3) Death; 4)  He just quits, due to health, sufficient wealth gains, or he just gets bored or frustrated with it; 5) Forced out due to insanity; 6) All other ways, including impeachment.

Hats off to Emmanuel Macron for creating a program to give grants to scientists to "Make the Planet Great Again"--nobody can devise a better insult than a Frenchman.  Have at 'im, E-Man'!

Donald Trump, "I fart in your general direction!"--a French poseur, in Monty Python's Holy Grail 

A Sticky Subject

When i was growing up, other guys would speak admiringly of some miscreants they knew, saying, "He don't give a shit."  The idea was that those non-giving individuals were fearless in their transgression, or at least heedless of the consequences of their actions.  I tended to avoid those folks, because I did (give a shit).   I figured those people would get me in trouble, probably for doing things that I didn't care about and dragging me down with them.

Those shitfull folks (not giving same, not scared shitless)  had what I would call a developmental flaw:  little or no impulse control.  It is not at all uncommon in young people; it usually is something that adults can master, if they choose to do so. One can hope they somehow could have skated through without serious harm, something I was fortunate enough to have done on some occasions--I was/am no angel--but I know that was not the case for many, particularly the ones who imagined that they could do whatever without any regard for those who might object, or who might have been harmed.

Sex Crimes
The current rash of sexual assault/harassment/rape allegations exhibit a peculiar phenomenon in our society:  People (so far, all men) whose impulses toward misbehavior have been reinforced by their positions of power, so that they feel immune from the consequences.  What they were not immune from, though, was a sickness that made this kind of behavior habitual, with all kinds of plotting,  premeditation, and some use of threats to insulate themselves. Such appears to have been the case with Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Mark Helperin, Louis C.K., Anthony Weiner, and (for me, most tragically) the brilliant actor Kevin Spacey, as well as others still prominent but not household names.

Boys being bad is, unfortunately, a widespread fact of today's life and I would say further, part of the weird mating rituals we have in many societies.  What is different in these cases was that these guys' positions of power acted as a deterrent to their victims' normal ability to fend off or respond to unwanted advances; what is different now is that these persons have decided not to suffer in silence anymore.  I applaud their courage, and I am somewhat impressed by the broader community's effort to try to change this ugly aspect of the very sticky and complex intersection of sex and power, a discussion that is going who knows where.  It is beyond my ability to predict; it is going well beyond the cases of famous people and having effect on all workplaces.   I can see some liberation coming out of this, for women and maybe even for men, who may learn to play the mating game more adroitly and less crudely in the future.

The Al Franken case is a bit different: Franken's story is a unique one, as I cannot think of any other comic who has made the transition to an active political career.  Comedy generally has a dark side, which makes it more affecting to the emotions, and comedians generally have to find their way to humor through trial and error--some lines work, some don't, and some offend. At the time of Franken's offense against Leann Tweeden, he was a humorist, not yet running for office; the victim of his naughty, harmful pranks was someone who, frankly, was putting herself out as an object of sexual desire (I was unfamiliar with her career; just Google her and you will see).  At this point, unless there is some evidence of a more widespread pattern of behavior, I would cite this as an isolated incident of lack of impulse control:  this is not to excuse it, he has apologized, he will no doubt be punished (probably more than others, because of his willingness to own up to it), and I think it will limit his career. 

What I object to is Donald Trump making judgments on Franken when he has failed to own up to his own behavior, even to the point of refusing even to acknowledge the many complainants or just calling the women liars and mocking them,.  It's outrageous, but that's just the norm for this miserable excuse of a human being whom we have mistakenly (and somewhat accidentally) elevated to a position of supreme power.

The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean-brain 
The case of Roy Moore, the Senate candidate from Alabama, is yet another. I denounced this obtuse, hypocritical bigot weeks ago when none of the allegations of borderline pedophilia had yet surfaced.  I rejoice that these women have come forward to address the pattern of stalking and groping underage girls which he exhibited (though he has denied the sexual assault aspects, the pattern of searching out, dating, and seeking to seduce the girls is factual); it makes the likelihood of the horror of him serving in the US Senate much less--they have performed a public service.

There is some difference from the pattern of the others' behavior--the events were some forty years ago, he was at most locally famous back then, and it seems as though he may have outgrown that infatuation and borderline criminal behavior.  (A 14-year-old is underage, even in Alabama.)  He seems to have been faithful to his wife of some 30-plus years, who was 24 when they married.  So, I don't oppose his taking office because he's sexually creepy, I oppose him because he's a monster in every regard.

All Eyes on Alabama
Lots of focus on the state that is "the South's South", as John Oliver memorably put it.  The U. of Alabama's Crimson Tide football team took its accustomed place at the top of the standings last weekend after a memorable combination of #1 and #3 losing while #2 Alabama squeezed out a narrow road victory over Mississippi St.  I couldn't imagine how Georgia could have been rated above any Alabama team when both were undefeated, but that's all over now.  Alabama still has tough tasks ahead, including an intra-state showdown vs. Auburn, the team that defeated Georgia, next weekend, but the path to yet another national championship for them is now clear.

The special election in Alabama next month will be the beginning of the midterm battle, with hugely important stakes.  To some extent, Moore's race (the election one, not the racial one) mirrors a possible 2020 national election if Trump is still in office and running for re-election.  Radical right-wing Republican nominee running against the establishment sector of his own party, and that establishment totally flustered and uncertain how much to oppose him.  A plausible but less-known Democrat hoping to benefit from the chaos, in either a two-way or three-way race.

The current race could go in any of several different directions:  a Washington Post article lays them out nicely, and ranks them in likelihood.  For me, the only acceptable outcome is 2b):  the race goes forward, as is, and Moore loses.   We must all do what we can--without provoking Alabama voters too much, so that they vote against their interests in a defensive stance against outside interference--to make that happen.  I gave to Democrat Doug Jones' campaign long ago; I think the money is flowing in nicely for him and he will run a sane campaign without stooping to the salacious, looking to let Moore flounder and sink in his tar pit.

Make no mistake, the outcome of this race is extremely important.  The two-vote Republican margin in the Senate (really, three-vote with Mike Pence remaining as the tiebreaking vote) will be very difficult to overcome in 2018 without this seat.  The Democrats really only have two likely candidates to pick up seats in 2018 as things stand today (Arizona and Nevada), and plenty of difficult ones to defend.  In this Thanksgiving season, I have to give Turkey-neck Majority Leader McConnell a modicum of credit for coming out strongly against Moore, even at the risk of losing a critical vote for his agenda;  it was strategically and morally more important for him to retain something of the high ground on this issue of sexual harassment, and to protect the Republican establishment's interest in defeating this radical upstart.

 One cautionary note:  I would not put any stock in the polls which show the Democrat Jones leading--there are doubtlessly people who will not admit to pollsters that they will vote for Moore despite what a monster he is (I call this "the David Duke effect"); the unknowns are if there will be a meaningful alternative for those who would prefer not to vote for either Moore or Jones, the extent to which that unknowable effect is present, how many will come home to the Republican as Moore's backers try to counter the perv problem, and how many Republicans just stay home.  Clearly, the Republicans start with a large potential majority in this race, but they are squandering it with their unwise choice of a nominee.


Final note; I was preparing a line about how President Trump should use his traditional Thanksgiving ritual of pardoning a turkey for one of his own house turkeys, like Jeff Sessions (who I would say is in serious danger of proceedings against him for lying in public to Senate committees); Jake Tapper got there first with this week's "State of the Union" cartoon on CNN (which he draws himself!).  Tapper concluded with the suggestion of Michael Flynn, who was in fact an (undisclosed) lobbyist for the foreign nation with the same name as the animal. Bravo, Jake.

Global Retrograde Commedia

I have restrained myself recently while the travesty of Drumpfian "governance" has continued to reveal its chaotic evil nature.  When it comes to administration, we have the White House revolving door:  Scaramucci/Spicer/Priebus/Bannon.  For foreign policy, we have vapid "fire and fury" threats toward North Korea.  For moral leadership, his shameful statements with regard to the events in Charlottesville, Virginia. Wall Street is, belatedly, starting to take notice of the madness, though the economy, so far, has not suffered from his misrule. The only remaining question is if and when the Republicans will try to disown him and their embarrassing history of kowtowing to his bullying; if that were to happen, taking the actual form of opposition, as distinct from mere criticism, the end of the farce would be near (and we could then be more comfortable laughing at the evident stupidity).

I would like to take Donald Trump to task for every misstep, every lie, every empty boast, every fault of direction, vision, leadership, acumen, or strategy.  I just don't have the time or patience.  So I will just address the three big ones I mentioned--in personnel management, foreign affairs, and use of the "bully pulpit"--all things that a President can actually control.  Then I will mention briefly my assessment of his handling of a couple of those that are less within a President's span of control, but which, too often, are used by the public to measure a President's success:  the economy and legislation.

When You Do the Fandango

I don't claim to be an expert on the commedia dell'arte, but I am enough of a fan to appreciate the "Scramouche" story from that centuries-old form of entertainment as it played out recently in real life.  Scaramouche (see above for a 200-year old image of the character, and the note below)* is, literally, a clown--the perfect caricature of the caricature which was Anthony Scaramucci's performance as "Communications Director" for the Donald in a mercifully-brief role.  I don't want to judge people on their name alone, but somewhere up the line Scaramucci's ancestors must either have been playing or being that guy--it's been named for centuries.   Scaramucci played the brash bucko but fell victim to pure bravado, calling Reince "Rancid Priapus" Priebus a paranoid schizophrenic and describing top adviser Steve Bannon as "trying to suck his own cock" in an on-the-record interview.  A bit too much communication, maybe; he was sacked by Priebus' successor, John Kelly, who's trying unsuccessfully to bring some decorum to the full-scale ugliness and infighting rampant in Trump's White House.

Another stock character sent packing recently was the personification of evil, Steve Bannon.  Bannon was an ideologue insistent on his extreme nationalist agenda.  Trump paid his advice plenty of attention during the campaign, but when it came to governing, his lose-lose strategies to isolate the US and suppress trade fell victim to pragmatism and to reality--so he was out.  Priebus and Bannon had traded hostility and throwing-under-bus behavior toward each other, as well as most everyone else around; new Chief of Staff John Kelly made sure both were shown the door in the interest of reducing chaos. Compared to those public bloodlettings, the departure of much-ridiculed press secretary Sean Spicer was relatively tame news.

The main source of the White House chaos remains, though, empowered to oust almost anyone in his government but, so far, loth to apply any standard of behavior to himself.

As for "fandango",  the other referent from Freddie Mercury's famed, unmistakable line in the classic  rock song "Bohemian Rhapsody", a word also featured in the first line of the lyrics from the classic Procol Harum song "Whiter Shade of Pale", as well as a popular website to buy advance movie tickets, it is a word that is bandied about frequently without much knowledge.  It is a Spanish foot-stomping dance, performed at triple time, typically with accompaniment from casatanets,  the frenzy of which somehow transformed the word's meaning toward clownish behavior.  Which brings us back to Scaramucci., and to Trump.

For a person with a long history as head of a major commercial operation, the man has no idea how to be the head of a major operation.  He routinely makes public criticism of his subordinates and key allies--people like his Attorney General, chief economic adviser, the majority leader of the Senate--and further reinforces the idea that loyalty to him is a one-way street, one that is unrewarding personally and to one's professional reputation.   If he cannot change his ways, even the corrupt power-seekers he has so far been able to attract will realize there is nothing to be gained (if not part of the immediate family) by tying one's name to this sinking ship of state.

*Scaramouche was the name of a 1921 historical novel by Rafael Sabatini set in the run-up to the French Revolution; the character was adopted by the novel's hero, who joined a dramatic troupe while seeking his moment of revenge.  Inspired by Hamlet, no doubt, but more an adventure story than a tragedy.  The 1953 movie made from it featured Stewart Granger, Mel Ferrer, (pre-shower) Janet Leigh, and the lovely Eleanor Parker.  "The Loves and Times of Scaramouche" was a second-rate Italian movie featuring Michael Sarrazin and (see second picture--a Spanish-language poster for it) Ursula Andress.

Empty Bluster
Can heads of state of nations armed with nuclear weapons and threatening to use them be totally ridiculous?  We saw in recent days, if those leaders are Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un of North Korea, the answer is yes.  Kim threatened to nuke Guam, which may have alarmed Guamanians but made him the butt of jokes for mainlanders; Trump then ripostes with vapid promise of "fire and fury, like the world has never seen" if Kim continues to threaten. It's all nonsense:  while these turkeys may have the theoretical power to order such a fandango, those who actually have to make such monstrosities happen would not condone or execute it without more justification.

As always with North Korea, the most interesting aspect is neither the North Koreans' lies or empty promises, nor America's impotent militaristic response, but the response of China to these vexatious complications from their neighbor.  This time, China advised North Korea they were on their own if it attacked the US (which put an end to that notion), supported UN sanctions against North Koreans for their unlawful missile tests, but drew the line when the Trumpsters added to the dogpile with unilateral sanctions against some favored Chinese entities for their alleged complicity in North Korean weapons development.

Then there was the Trump-eted big announcement with regard to the US' involvement in Afghanistan, basically a big nothingburger.  It boils down to continuing the effort to suppress a potential Taliban takeover, trying to eliminate ISIS there, and promising nothing specific.  A continuation of the policy he inherited from Obama's administration, but of course it could have been worse.  At least his military advisers are consistent and predictable in their behavior.

The Battle of Charlottesville
The subtitle is a bit ironic; the C'ville area was one of the few parts of Virginia that doesn't have a Civil War battlefield.  Grant and Lee's armies were headed in that general direction but ended their conflict at Appomattox Courthouse, 60 miles or so to the south, and the running cavalry war in the Shenandoah Valley ended about 30 miles to the west in the Battle of Waynesboro a month before then, when Union General George Custer finally defeated the Confederate forces which had been rampaging up and down the Valley for years.  In that way the area was spared the devastation of war, and antebellum mansions like Thomas Jefferson's Monticello and James Monroe's Highland survived unscathed.

I know Charlottesville pretty well; rather, I should say I knew it.  That same Waynesboro was my home in the '70's.  Coincidentally,  I visited Waynesboro, for the first time in decades, the same day as the white supremacist rally.  I was at a peaceful gathering, a reunion of '70s era rock bands with a friendly crowd of oldies and families, and we had no notice of the violence occurring a half-hour away.

One thing I want to do is provide some defense for the reputation of Charlottesville, a big college town/small city with an uneven past.  The University of Virginia, which Jefferson helped found and architect, has a well-deserved historical reputation for well-heeled and ill-behaved,  entitled white boys, one it has not completely shed, and the city and its housing were segregated, formally and then informally, until very late, but now the city tends very strongly in a progressive direction.  I won't say it was the big city for us, but it was the place we could go for a bit of culture, either highbrow or popular entertainment.  Although one of the top organizers of the white supremacist gathering was from Charlottesville, for the most part it was just the unlucky locale which could not legally keep away those coming for a "peaceful" assembly for vitriolic hate speech.

Of course, it did not turn out that way.  The counter-protesters no doubt had mixed motivations:  to confront the assembled neo-Nazis, KKK, and fellow travelers, even to try to prevent their marching; also to defend the plan to tear down the Confederate "hero" statues.  There had been scattered violence prior to the fatal vehicular assault by some lunatic rightist, and it seems as though the police were not active in keeping the opposing sides apart.  They did step in more once the worst had happened.

With regard to statues of historical figures, I refer to Nietzsche's "Use and Abuse of History" which identifies three valid (but not mutually exclusive) uses of history: for purposes monumental, antiquarian, and critical.   I'm certainly not opposed to statues being made, even of people who were monstrous, but there should not be monuments to traitors.  (That was the problem of the giant statues of Lee and Beauregard in New Orleans which were previous sources of antagonism before being removed:  they were so central and monumental, their symbolic purpose was unmistakable.) There may be an antiquarian purpose to memorializing some parts of the past; Europe is full of statues in out-of-the-way locations to people who are no longer widely remembered; most of them provide some information about who and what , and thus are educational. I haven't yet seen a statue erected for the purpose of criticism--Jefferson watching as his slave is lashed, Patton slapping the soldier's face as he accuses him of cowardice--but some historical  "National Monuments" like Mt. Vernon and Monticello have started to learn the lesson and present their homage to their national heroes a little less uncritically these days. One thing I was appalled to see recently, when driving to Washington's National Airport ("Reagan" is not part of its name, as far as I'm concerned), is that the Pentagon and some other venues of national military or patriotic significance in Arlington are on Jefferson Davis Highway.  I find nothing redeeming in the treason of the Confederacy's President.  I would welcome the banishment of his name, by law, from the vicinity of any Federal venue of any kind.

So. Trump's equivocation about the Charlottesville violence is readily understandable to me, as is his recent pardon of the convicted Hispanic profiler, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona.  He is always ready to send a signal to his most loyal supporters--the deplorables of the extreme right, yes, including the nativists, bigots and racists--that they will not be abandoned by him to their deserved fate in the dustbin of history.  His advisers pleaded with him to do the right thing, to unequivocally denounce them for their militant, anti-American extremism, but he just couldn't leave it at that.  You can't blame Trump for being Trump, just as you can't blame a viper for being a cold-blooded, venomous reptile.

I do want to mention the extraordinary coverage of the Charlottesville incident provided by HBO's Vice News.  Vice implanted a young, patient reporter (Elle Reeve) among the beasts behind the right-wing rally, where she had some amazing admissions of their malevolent hate-mongering.  They even had video of the moments when the car and driver attacked the counter-protesters, then backed away at high speed.  Prize-winning stuff.

When Incompetence is the Best Strategy 
From the point of view of national popularity, Trumps's moral obtuseness with regard to Charlottesville has been a negative. The widespread condemnation it has taken, especially among some stalwart Republican politicians and his panels of corporate executives, has cost him some support, which shows that there is some growing discernment of the gross error made last November, even among some Trump voters.

I feel that his popularity would have suffered even more in these months had Trump not been totally incompetent in the promotion of his domestic agenda.  Nothing that he or the Republican Congressional leaders have promoted--the misbegotten Obamacare replacement efforts, the budget designed to starve innovation and productivity, the stillborn invitation to corruption that was their infrastructure investment program, the repeal of trade agreements, the tax reform giveaways to the wealthy and corporations--would have redounded to the benefit, in the short, middle, or long term, of those beloved "poorly educated", or the disenchanted blue-collar workers who helped Trump achieve his fluke victory last fall. Those people may ignore the chit-chat without result coming from Washington.  There may still be a domestic disaster this fall, though, if Trump makes good on his threat to shut down the government if Congress does not authorize funding for his stupid (and unpopular) border wall.

Though I wish earnestly for Trump to fail in every way, I cannot bring myself to support the perverse argument my comments above suggest:  I don't want him to fail by succeeding in achieving his policy aims.  Instead, I want him to continue to achieve nothing until such time as his reign of terrible ends through his death, resignation, incarceration, or (least favorable, but still acceptable) massive electoral defeat.

Deplorable

adjective - lamentable; deserving strong condemnation..  synonyms:  disgraceful, shameful, dishonorable, unworthy, inexcusable, unpardonable, unforgivable. 

"lamentable" is the first definition in Merriam-Webster; I believe that would be because it is the original meaning of the word. The rest of it--the more judgmental meaning, and the synonyms--is the more modern usage, as provided by Google.  That word--both definitions--is the perfect one to describe the result of the 2016 Presidential election.  Hillary Clinton didn't have it right when she said that half of Trump's supporters were a "basket of deplorables".  Deplorable is an adjective; describing a person as "a deplorable" is incorrect.  I don't believe that people are deplorable, though some of their opinions and actions may be.

That the result itself is deplorable I think is self-evident--if not, I will not explain it here, but refer you to my previous post, in which I listed the probable consequences of a Trump victory.  The causes are many
--bad tactical decisions by the Clinton campaign on the use of their many resources;
--FBI Director James Comey's blundering and harmful messages on the Weiner laptop emails (which slowed Clinton's momentum, probably not changing many minds but suppressing some turnout among some of her likely supporters);
--the randomness of decision by Electoral College (a switch of some 0.05% of the national vote in three states would've changed the results);
--the lack of focus on change initiatives from the candidate herself;

--and yes, it is possible, though unprovable, that Bernie Sanders might have done better against Trump, though the die had already been cast for Clinton by the time Trump locked up his nomination.

The real blame for the result belongs entirely on those people who voted for Donald Trump. They should have known better.

I'm not talking about the personal peccadilloes involved, in this era of indiscretions--I suppose we can cancel the misdeeds of Trump against those of Bill Clinton (if they are at all relevant to Hillary's candidacy) or the BFD issue of Hillary's choice of server for her emails-- I never cared much about these, and apparently the supposed moral conservatives didn't, mind much, either.  With regard to my own insistence that it is foreign and military policy that matters in a President, it was no contest (Clinton) but not critical; to the extent Trump's actual positions are known, they don't differ much from Clinton's (except for questions like sucking up to Putin, supporting our allies, or abrogating our treaties and international agreements).

Even if one focuses on the domestic issues that people of both parties would have cited as being important, such as jobs, taxes, education, and entitlement programs, Clinton's positions were clearly articulated, grounded in reality, and generally ignored; Trump's were vague and unrealistic. Try going to his website and look for something about Medicare or Social Security--you will find nothing, only his blather about "Obamacare", his positions on which are rapidly evolving to something not appreciably different from Clinton's "enhance and improve" stance.   But enough about that--there is plenty of evidence that voters did not know the candidates' positions on these issues, nor care about them, nor was there more than a smattering of attention to them in the media's coverage of the campaign.

What I am talking about is the reasons people give for their votes for Trump, a subject which is getting excessive attention now that it is too late to remedy those fatal errors.  Voters' decisions are typically emotional ones, and it is there that I am most amazed.  Why they would choose to put their trust in a person who continually lied (or misstated facts, if that is something different), who has a long history of defrauding his employees, customers, contractors, business partners, and investors, I will never know or understand the answer.

The reason often cited that he is "one of them" does not hold water. He is even more an elitist than the Clintons, and his interests are those of the moneyed class.  Far from being a press-the-flesh politician (or even salesman) he actually has an aversion (well-hidden) to physical contact with the proletariat.  Although he is an outsider to Washington politics, he is very much an insider in the larger game of the American economy, and as an agent of change, there is a lot of bluster, very little beef:  what is new about tax cuts for the rich?  Where is the evidence that immigration is harming our economy or security?  There is this "tribal" theory of voting, but it hardly explains to me the 30% of Hispanics and 50% of white women who voted for this anti-Hispanic misogynist.  Some seer on one of this morning's talking heads shows said that the election was the 21st century intruding on our politics; I think it was the opposite--an intrusion of mid-20th century politics.

There is one group I think can be readily identified as the core Trump supporter:  the older, white, working-class males without a college degree.  They have been Trump's most consistent source of support throughout, and they turned out in unprecedented numbers for him on Election Day.  Though they don't appear to be appreciably poorer than average, there is a consistent thread of resentment, a claim that they are not getting their fair share anymore, and that some "others" are getting it instead.  No need to call people names, but it is this nativist, nostalgic, willing suspension of disbelief in this fraudulent con artist which is at the heart of this terrifically close, terrifying and disheartening result.

Well, I can't complain that the night lacked drama, though it was a slow-moving one.  Let's call Part I of our drama done; Part 2 will be "The Donald Trump Era and the Decline/Rebirth of the American Empire", presumably beginning January 20 and ending four years later.

Enough rant.  I will proceed immediately to another post, with lessons learned and escape plans, as promised.

Election Night Live blog

11:20 p.m. It's not over, but I can't continue blogging right now. Michigan is now looking possible; Wisconsin does not look good.  Clinton is going to need Nevada, New Hampshire, and maybe one of those Maine or Nebraska districts. 

10:45 p.m.  Very strong trend for Trump on Predictit.org, now up to around 80%, depending on the market.  The markets are moving very quickly.  It's too late to sell out any positions, I'm going to hold on and hope Michigan turns.  Or that Arizona, which no one is yet mentioning, becomes an upset the other way.  I am hearing a lot of rationalizations, rather than panic, from a journalistic community that is absorbing a possible shocker.   New York Times is expecting Pennsylvania to end up extremely close.  I think it's time for another drink (my third).

10:30 p.m.  I see Wisconsin ultimately being a Clinton win, but Michigan is looking very bad.  Also North Carolina. New Hampshire is basically tied; on Maine 2nd Congressional District I have not seen any results.  Right now I am rooting for Evan McMullin in Utah!

In the Senate, it is looking good for McGinty in PA, not so good (so far) for Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, which would be an unmitigated disaster.  New Hampshire's Senate race is, like the Presidential one there, a toss-up.  Nevada not yet reporting.  Not looking good for Democratic control of the Senate, either.


10:00 p.m. Michigan is appearing as the possible death blow to Clinton, with Florida and Ohio seemingly out of reach and North Carolina unfavorable. Predictit.org is now projecting 276 Electoral votes for Trump, but 16 of those are Michigan's.
The possibility to me is something that Nate Silver discounted:  Clinton winning the popular vote, but Trump winning the electoral vote because of close wins in some large Electoral College states.

On CNN they are talking about that missing thing that the modelers and pollsters missed, they don't know what to call it.  I call it the "David Duke Effect"--people who are getting their revenge by voting for Trump,, though they may have pretended otherwise.

9:25 p.m. WTF?  A bit of a low point, with Clinton showing some trouble in Michigan, Virginia, and with Florida and Ohio getting away from her.  If she loses Michigan, even North Carolina (still totally up for grabs) would not protect her.  I feel this may be her low point on the night.  Let's hope so--after an early strong start, my Predictit account is bleeding money.

As I thought, it looks like a late night.

9:05 p.m  (EST). - No news to report so far in the Presidential contest.  Florida, North Carolina are as close as expected; Ohio and Virginia maybe a bit closer.
The Senate isn't moving too well in the Democrats' direction, with disappointing results for Evan Bayh in Indiana and against Marco Rubio in Florida.  The other Eastern states with competitive races (NH, NC, WI, MO) have not been called, though most of the attention is still on the Presidential race.
Only real news is strong turnout for both the red and blue districts/states.  This probably means less ticket-splitting, as regards the Senate, which is not so good for Democrats' chances to regain control.
One good thing NBC had was a projection of the House--presumably on the strength of exit polls (generic).  They are projecting 235-200, which would be a gain of 12 for the Democrats.  Probably a 3-5 seat plus or minus.
I didn't get the nap I had proposed (I focused on getting some takeout), but the 7-9 p.m. was, in fact, a news dead zone.

Election Eve Guide to Sleeping Through Election Night

I want to keep this somewhat short so I can get some sleep tonight, as it may be hard to find tomorrow night. Here are a couple of guides tomorrow night that might help you catch a few moments of shut-eye during the evening, even if--as I am fairly certain will be the case--it goes very late.

When to Start --There is something to say for the argument to take a nap early, assuming your nerves will allow it.  There will be a period from about 6 to 8 p.m. during which there will be little in the way of solid returns, the networks will talk about certain characteristics in their exit polls but not the results themselves, and there will be a lot of talk about what to expect, what are the themes, etc., none of which will be very surprising.

The first first two states to report in something like full measure will be Indiana and Kentucky, both of which will be easy Trump wins.  Kentucky will be the first state in history to be called for Donald Trump in a general election, a dishonor for my native birth state.  There will be a couple points of interest in Indiana; the main one is the race for the Senate seat which Evan Bayh is trying to reclaim. He joined the race late, was favored to win, but has been damaged by the charge of being an outsider, and now is perceived from recent polling to be trailing narrowly.  If Bayh can win his race, the Democrats' chances to regain control of the Senate move from likely to highly probable, though that may take some hours to emerge.  The other is the governor's race which I interests me most, in which Democrat John Gregg is a slight favorite to take the chair being vacated by Mike Pence.

Virginia (closing 7 p.m.) will be the first good indication of the nature of the Presidential race.  Hillary Clinton is favored to win by about 5% there, and the votes should come in fairly quickly.  If she wins narrowly, or if the race is not called within an hour or two, that will be an indicator of possibly a bad night for Clinton (much worse, of course, if she doesn't win it--that would be disastrous).  So, you could tune in at 8 and see how it looks.

The Game is Underway - It gets faster and is fully engaged after 8, when the returns from both time zones begin to report for the critical state of Florida (there will be some partial, indeterminate results in the hour before). Florida is not just a bellwether, though; it is the state which will tip the balance, the whole race in a nutshell, where most of the themes will be tested--turnout and the extent of Trump support among poor whites, turnout of African Americans, and, above all, the extent to which Latinos will turn out, one-sidedly, against Trump.  We can expect the statewide outcome to be close enough that it will take a couple of hours to see who is likely to win it.  If it's Clinton, it will not be such a late night for the Presidential race; if it's tied or Trump winning, we will have to stay tuned.

Ohio and North Carolina will close their polls at 7:30, but we should not expect either of those states to resolve quickly. In the case of Ohio, unusually, it does not appear to be critical.  Trump is perceived to be leading, though the gap may be narrowing, but his victory there does not presage Electoral College success.  North Carolina's demographics are shifting and becoming more diverse; it's actually one of the states where the Latino vote will be critical, but I have learned not to trust the outcomes from there.

The next main tests will be Pennsylvania and Michigan, both of which will have their polls close at 8 p.m. I expect there will be huge lines in both states, heavily contested but without significant early voting, and they will necessitate the polls staying open in some locations, so the returns may be delayed.  In any case, PA and MI will test whether Trump has a real chance to pull off a major upset--if he can win either, the electoral map for Clinton will be dramatically more challenging.

Two Somewhat Risky Approaches - One could actually suggest extending the early-evening nap until 9:30 or even 10, with the expectation that VA, PA, and MI will go according to form,that  NC, OH, and FL will not be decided early, and one can be fairly certain that the race can not officially be called until 11 p.m. Eastern, when the polls close in California.  The following hour--between 11 and 12--will probably be the climax,, when the close Eastern time zone states will finally resolve.  There is a bit of a risk, though, that the dominoes could fall faster and you could miss the decisive moments when the outcome will be indicated.

A different approach would be to skip the nervous hours, between 8 and 10, when things may unfold somewhat predictably but also slowly.  Get those early indications before 8, and decide whther to resume viewing at 10:30 or 11 for the climax and the call, or if it looks bad early for the Democrats, set the alarm for midnight--that is probably the earliest that a Trump victory, a dead heat-type outcome, or a contested outcome could fully emerge.

Predictit.org Status and Final Predictions
In the past 48 hours, as Clinton's poll numbers stabilized, then improved (helped by FBI Director Comey's announcement that the Weiner laptop was, investigatorially speaking, a big nothingburger), the uncertainty in the betting markets has reduced dramatically.  The odds for most of the Electoral votes--with the exceptions of  Maine's 2nd Congressional District, NC, OH, and FL, in rough order from closest to a pure toss-up--have moved toward the extremes.  Those positions for the Democrats at 15% in Texas or 25% in PA have been closed out.

I have done the same, as I have unwound some of my perfectly hedged positions, like I had in Georgia, Iowa, and Nevada, shifting it toward the favorite.  I have always favored the Democrats in NH, PA, VA, and the upper Midwest states, even in the tough times.  I have moved out of most of my true underdog positions (I have some small ones on Democrats in Montana, the Indiana and Florida Senate races).  I still am hedged on the big 3, FL, NC, and OH, which will allow me to move toward one side or the other if I am so inclined, and the Nevada and New Hampshire Senate races.

Some of the more interesting markets are on some "point spread" type bets--on 1) the Electoral votes for the winner, 2) the margin of victory on the popular vote, and on 3) the final number of Republican Senate seats and on 4) the number (ranged) of Republican House seats.  My positions on each are as follows:

1.   spread somewhat evenly on four ranges between 280 and 359 Electoral votes  (and no on the other ranges); 
2.   evenly between 2-4% and 4-6% (holding to my original prediction of a 3.9% margin, the same that Obama had over Romney in 2012;
3.   49 or less Republican seats (and a smaller bet on 50); and 
4.   218-230 Republican seats (231-240 is the favored position). 

A late, welcome addition to the predictit.org is their Election Map, showing where the
markets are by state, color-coded for the strength of sentiment.  It is updated continuously, or at least has been recently.  It is currently showing 307-215 for Clinton, with ME-2 and NC classified as toss-ups.  Larry Sabato's respected political science blog had much the same, 322-216 with NC to Clinton and ME-2 to the Republicans.

As for me, I am stubbornly sticking with most of my Sept. 11 predictions.  A gain of five Senate seats (WI, IL, NH, PA, and IN, holding NV narrowly), a 3.9% popular vote margin for Clinton (though the 3rd-party vote has dropped more than I expected), but a decrease in the final Electoral Vote count for Clinton from 296 to 278 (the difference being Ohio's 18).  In other words, Obama's 2012 332 votes, minus Florida, Iowa, Maine's 2nd, and Ohio.

In this scenario, a late-night nail-biter, New Hampshire and Nevada become critical for Clinton to hold, above and beyond the states like WI, MI, PA, VA, and CO.  I am nervously expecting all of those to be held.  I have only hope, but little expectation, for Democratic wins in MO and NC, despite strong campaigns against incumbents and regret that the opportunity to defeat Marco Rubio in the FL Senate race seems unlikely to succeed.

Election Day Update:  I neglected to mention the House of Representatives.  My bet on 218-230 Republican seats was primarily because I liked the price; the median estimate is more like 235.  The two contests I will be looking for are, first:  Illinois-10, a third-time-around matchup in the suburbs (where I have my "principal", though not "permanent", residence).  Democrat Schneider won it in 2012, "Republican" Dold won it from him in 2014, and this year Dold, though nominated by his party, is running essentially as an independent.  The other is California-25, where a Democrat named "Colonel Doug Applegate" has a chance to knock off the odious Darrell Issa.  That one I will have to research the next day to find out what happened.

I plan to blog live tomorrow for at least some of the evening (no funny stuff with font size this time, sorry about that), and then the next day to review lessons learned, if Hillary wins, and escape plans if she should lose.

Political Drama 2016, Act IV: A New Hope

After Act III, with its back-and-forth trends and increasing levels of tension, Act IV opens with a dramatic Scene 1: the Hofstra debate, which ends with Trump babbling about Rosie O'Donnell and Alicia Machado over a raucous, discordant soundtrack. 

Good News for All Humanity 
It is not my habit to invoke a higher power, but Thank Goodness! for Hillary Clinton and her performance, and for her opponent's, in the first Presidential debate. Of course, that is shortchanging the credit she deserves for her determined, well-prepared assault on The Wherever Man's psyche, and the result was not a matter of luck:  a psychiatrist would probably insist that, given the Drumpfenkopf's makeup and the correct stimuli, his disjointed, incoherent rants were to be expected.

Still, there was a sigh of relief that could be heard 'round the world after the September 26 encounter. By the time it was over, it was clear that Donald Trump's campaign for Presidency had passed its high-water mark, having reached Clinton's level in the polling, or even slightly higher.  She had demonstrated a full recovery from her medical setback with pneumonia and a bad run of publicity; Trump, meanwhile, had his bubble of invincibility thoroughly punctured in their initial showdown.

In my opinion, the critical attack was Clinton's well-prepared listing of the many possible reasons, all of them devastating to his manufactured image, of why he would not release his tax returns. Although there is no legal requirement that he do so, neither does his excuse of an ongoing audit have any merit. He might still publicly release a tax return--for example, his 2015 return, which must be filed in the next couple of weeks, and which could not possibly yet be subjected to audit--but the questions about his missing past returns are not going to go away.  He had his chance to make the argument, "I know all the tricks and loopholes, and I will sweep them away,"  but his tax-cut-for-the-rich proposal does no such thing.  It is too late for him to redeem his populist credentials.

I would think it likely that, in at least one of the two remaining debates (assuming he dares to take the stage for both), he will be able to retain his composure through its duration.  (His calm, attentive pseudo-Presidential demeanor lasted about 20 minutes for this first one.)  He may even find a series of more effective attacks, or more impressively, more effective defense, but he will not be able to wipe that big "L" off his forehead, the virtual image of which has now burned into our memories.

It doesn't hurt that the third-party candidacy of Gary Johnson seems to be flaming out.  Perhaps it was inevitable, but he has exhibited a series of blunders which show that he is not a serious aspirant to become Leader of the Free World, and his running mate William Weld has accepted reality and announced his focus from now until Election Day will be on opposing and exposing Trump.  So, as the third-party support drifts, it seems unlikely that Trump will gain more than half of the drifters.

Finally, the percentage of undecided seems to be dropping quickly, so there is less of an unknown unallocated factor.  There remains the possibility that a significant percentage of the American electorate is hiding its intention to end up supporting him, something not to be ignored, but I don't think indifference or complacency will cause Clinton's defeat.  The final straw should be a series of popular heavyweights--Obama, Biden, Gore, Sanders, Warren, Jesse Jackson, and others--who will hit the campaign trail after the debates are over, in order to help enforce the essential truth:  a Trump presidency is unacceptable.  I would say "unthinkable", but in the days before that fateful debate, we have indeed had to think of what it might mean, even to the point of considering what we, individually, might have to do.

To put it briefly, it does not strain the imagination to think that the damage done by a single term of a Trump presidency could exceed that which Dubya produced in eight years.

The Consequences of a Trump Victory
Certain, or Near-Certain: 
--There would be a serious, immediate  persistent drop in US equity markets, and in the value of the dollar relative to other currencies.  The first, due to the uncertainty; the second, due to the likelihood that the deficit would once again balloon.
--The Senate would remain under Republican control; the Supreme Court vacancy would eventually be filled by a Trump nominee.
--The recovery of America's prestige in the world that President Obama has broadly achieved, especially with our closest allies, would be immediately reversed.  With few exceptions, the whole world finds it hard to believe we could elect a person like him, and most nations' leaders and people would take direct offense at the lack of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind". *
--Acceleration of income inequality; rampant corruption and favoritism.

Very Likely
--Trade barriers would rise all around the world in response to Trump's unilateral actions to impose new tariffs and other restrictions, leading to a deep global recession.
--A rash of new barriers to human migration and to normal travel, ranging throughout Europe, to East Asia, Australia, and Latin America.
--A serious reversal of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas release in the US, which would lead to collapse of the global agreement.
--Widespread protests and demonstrations, in the US and elsewhere, by minority groups and any  political sympathizers, which are likely to be repressed violently..
--Russia tests the resolve of its newly empowered "friend" with provocations of hostile neighbors, which will either embarrass the US or entangle it in unwanted new conflict.

Easily Believable
--Mexico might decide to retaliate against American injuries by opening up the floodgates and pushing forward refugees from Central America, other Western Hemisphere nations, even from the Middle East, and from among its own prison and criminal populations, fulfilling the negative characteristics that Trump fancifully described. (In this scenario, Trump's Wall might not yet be completed, yet even if it were, it could not effectively prevent the incursion of a determined, massive effort to compromise the borders.)
--New fascist-oriented dictatorships.
--Global depression.
--Major conflicts in multiple regions--world war around the "clash of civilizations"?
--Nuclear brinkmanship; a new round of nuclear proliferation  (South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran abrogates its treaty, Egypt, Turkey...)
--Collapse of the Western parliamentary democratic consensus.

Historical Context
I have previously referred to Donald Trump as a modern-day Alcibiades, the ancient Athenian demagogue of dubious loyalty during the Peloponnesian War.  I am rethinking this, though;  in general, analogies to the Roman Empire are more appropriate for this American era, and, though Trump is erratic, I would be surprised if he turned up in the Kremlin directing strategy against us.  In this regard, the historical persona to which Trump most resembles is Caligula, the degenerate emperor who mocked and degraded everything and everyone, and, in so doing, became a figure of ridicule for history.

The fourth act of this play, which is still waiting for its title--it will either be the historical drama "Hillary Clinton" (I'm thinking it's not "H.C., Part I") or the farcical "Donald Drumpf and the Downfall of the American Empire, Part I"--sets itself up for us to anticipate fairly clearly.  The VP debate was a brief interlude in front of the closed curtain after Scene 1; Scenes 2 and 3 would presumably be the two upcoming Presidential debates, leading to the frantic Scene 4 in the weeks before the Election, and the unpredictable, climactic Scene 5 (and the denoument, the day after, Scene 6, which would normally be expected to end the show).

*a phrase quoted from the introduction to the Declaration of Independence.

After Labor Day

Three themes on the question of "after labor", then my first official 2016 general election predictions, and a couple of brief obits.

Britain After Labour (and Scotland?)
An American expat friend of mine residing in Europe (basically, on both sides of the English Channel) sent out a link to the full text of a three-hour British Parliament debate, a response to a petition (signed by 4 million Brits) requesting a new referendum on Brexit. Reading the debate's text--something I don't necessarily recommend if you have only casual interest--one would see that the petition had no chance.  Partially this was because the terms proposed for the new referendum's being decisive (minimum 60% plurality, with 75% participation) were excessively stringent, but mostly because no one dared to say something on the order of, "we didn't pose the question to the people in the right way, so we got the wrong answer.  We should try again."   Instead, out of fear of contradicting the will of the electorate, everyone will go forward and try to implement a decision which still has no plan for execution and which most feel is totally wrong-headed.

As Donald Trump realized in his bird-brained comments June 24 (the day after the referendum), it's a lot like having him as President, if that were to happen.

It is clear from the debate that there will be no new referendum, no opportunity for a "do-over". There is likely to be a vote in Parliament on the terms the Government will negotiate with the EU for Britain reversing its entry into the European Community.  There is some ambiguity about whether legislation is required by the EU Constitution's Article 50, but I would expect the Government will ask for Parliament's endorsement.  This will be one of those career-defining moments for many of the Members of Parliament, perhaps comparable to the one when Britain voted to authorize participation in the invasion of Iraq.

My advice on this is to the parties other than the Conservative party (besides the UKIP, which I advise to follow the example of their former leader, Nigel Farage: declare victory and exit, stage right).  Labour, what's left of the Liberal Democrats, and the Green party must all unequivocally and unanimously oppose whatever terms are finally put forward. If the Conservatives can get their act together--meaning, complete the required complex negotiations and unify all their members behind legislation--and then bring it forward before the next general election, they would not need any support from the other parties.  That would be their "victory", but then they would own the result.

There were elements of the Labour opposition party that were in favor of exiting Europe--mostly because of concerns legal labor migration was undercutting British workers economically--just as there were many in the Conservative party opposed to Brexit.  We can expect that the next election will be a referendum on the Conservative government's handling of the exit, and it will allow Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and Greens to unite for a single slate of opposition candidates.

This building of a coalition is crucial. Labour, by itself, does not look as though it will ever be able to govern again.  The radical leadership elected by its members, headed by Jeremy Corbyn, has minimal support from the Parliamentary caucus, but remains stubbornly in place, and its membership seems determined to retain Corbyn, reject the politically successful New Labour of Tony Blair, and inhabit the wilderness of bootless opposition.

To make things worse for Labour, the party's ineffective opposition to Brexit has further estranged it from its onetime solid support in Scotland.  When this exit gets determined, Scotland will want out (of Britain, but staying in the EU), and one way or the other, Labour has lost them.

Are We There Yet? 
 After Labor Day is when the US Presidential campaign is finally supposed to get serious.  Yet, remarkably, some 40% of likely American voters indicate they would vote for Donald Trump! Obviously, in the words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" (I don't know his political persuasion, but I'd love to see an anti-Trump ad with him saying that.)

Thankfully, 40% is not going to be enough to elect him--he will need  about 45% on Election Day to have an even shot at winning the election, but he is close enough to make me very uncomfortable, once again. In the last few weeks, his support has firmed up, while Hillary Clinton's has been eroded by a lot of negative publicity. With the current reality, though his stunt of "reaching out" to the African-American community with his speech at the Detroit church will fool very few blacks, or deceive few of other ethnic groups to believe he is not bigoted (if they did not already believe that), even if he only moves one in 50, or moves his support from 1% of blacks to 5%, that moves him a 10% of that distance.

And sometimes we are so gullible. The first debate looms, and no one can be sure what kind of verbal snake oil he will uncork.  I'm thinking that it will be some kind of accusation that Hillary Clinton is soft on ISIS--ridiculous on the face of it, a complete falsehood, but one that would be a trap:  If she responds by defending her actual hawkish history and tendencies, she will sound, ironically, defensive, while reminding others, of a more pacifist orientation who may be on the fence, that she has supported war in Iraq and attacks on Libya (and, of course, there's Benghazi!).   Worse would be if she "softens" her line, as some may advise her to do. My own hope is that she will mock him, ask him how much he will suck up to Putin if elected, or challenge him on what to do about North Korea (a question so difficult that he is certain to say something stupid), but I suspect she will be serious and dignified, while he will seek to present himself as the charming clown.  She will "win" the debate on points, but he will gain--among the factually challenged.

Climbing out on the General Election Limb
Anyway, I think it's time to make my first official prediction.  Popular vote:  Clinton 46.5, Trump 42.7, Johnson + Stein + Others 10.8.   Electoral College:  Clinton 296, Trump 242.

That Electoral College estimate is a little cautious: I am now thinking it will not be such a decisive victory as seemed likely just a few weeks ago.  That Electoral College result is Obama's 2012 states won minus Florida, Iowa and Maine's 2nd Congressional district.  I have been considering whether North Carolina would go the other direction, providing Clinton a pick-up vs. Obama's 2012 level (though he did win it in 2008), but I see a negative trend that I think might continue. 296-242 is still OK; I could even be wrong about Ohio, which is very close, and the result would not be overturned.  Just as long as Pennsylvania stays on the Democratic side, and it still seems safely so thus far.

In the Senate, I'm predicting the Democrats to pick up five seats (WI, IL, IN, NH, and PA, with Nevada staying Democratic by less than 1%), which would give them 51; in the House, a 17-seat gain for the Democrats, leaving them 13 short of control.  A decent result, but not the spanking the Republicans deserve, and not sufficiently decisive to break the Congressional deadlock, which may reasonably be expected to get even worse after the 2018 midterm election.

As for my Predictit.org strategy (account up about 50% since I signed on a year ago), I have played it cautiously for the most part:  a lot of positions, but small ones, and backing out, when possible, of probable losers.  Making lots of small profits by taking a position and riding opinion upwards.  For a few questions which I feel could go either way, I have successfully straddled, taking advantageous positions on both sides of the question--certain not to lose, but not going to win much.  For example, on the question of which party will win North Carolina in the Presidential election, I have equal-sized bets on Yes for the Republicans (at 57%) and Democrats (at 36%)--I will gain 7% if either party wins the state. I am more out on the limb on the winner of the Presidential election, the overall results in the Electoral College, the House and the Senate.

Certainly there will be movement--my Predictit strategy should benefit from it--but I have tried to anticipate likely deviations and a less-than-optimal debate outcome.  The only reason I would change would be if Trump does something unusually outrageous, like shooting his supporters on Seventh Avenue.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
This year's general election campaign seems very chaotic in terms of issues; nothing seems to have caught and kept the attention of our 24/7 search for something relevant to focus upon.  Maybe we just can't--focus, that is.  And, while I feel the ability of a President to effect the course of economic events is vastly overrated, I do think that some attention to our labor market may be warranted.  Last week's announcement showed a disappointing, slowing amount of net job growth, though it remained positive.

What I would like to hear is not empty promises, either that tax cuts for the rich and corporations will magically transform into more, better jobs (the Republican line), or that the Democrats can somehow get Republicans to agree to massive infrastructure projects.  This kind of Keynesian pump priming might generate job-creating momentum at a time when the economy is slumping.  We may be there before long, but right now it's a fantasy.

Rather, I would like to hear a mature discussion about how our society can adapt to new realities in the job market:  broadening automation and the globalization of manufacture (and now, even more web/phone servicing jobs) are real and permanent.  Demand for  full-time jobs that last and carry with them essential benefits exceeds, and will continue to exceed, the supply.  "Job creators" are generally more focused in reducing employment expenses than in expanding them.  Part-time jobs are a feature of the job landscape, more likely to increase than not, and our society is not well prepared to provide people who can only get, or can only manage, part-time work (even two or more such jobs) a stable way of life.  Some creative thinking on solutions to this problem would be one of the greatest contributions government could make toward making American society work better.

Some types of meaningful jobs are going to expand--programming and systems design still remain strong. Employment in the arts and entertainment is ever broader and America's contribution to the global art scene remains prominent. Demand for people to care for the elderly will increase for some decades still.  There are jobs for those with the right skills in many areas, but training and education--both public and private--are lagging behind the needs, and there is the question of who pays for that training.

Quick obits
Islam Karimov, Phyllis Schafly -a couple of welcome departures.  Karimov was the autocrat who ruled Uzbekistan since the breakup of the Soviet Union.  He may have been "our" dictator, but the time for that kind of thinking is long past.  Schafly was an extreme anti-feminist, right-wing rallying point for bad thinking since the '60's.; most recently, she advertised how much she liked Donald Trump.  "Deplorable"!

Gene Wilder - Wilder was a versatile comedic actor--not one to tell jokes, but able to show the human side of lovable, slightly kooky, characters.  His partnership with Mel Brooks led to classic movies ("Blazing Saddles", "Young Frankenstein", "The Producers"), and his portrayal of Willy Wonka remains the definitive one.  He succumbed to the effects of Alzheimer's, the true dread malady of this age.

Priorities

Meme for Republicans:  Mene, tekel upharsin!
(Hint:  Biblical handwriting is on the wall for you.)
Before leaving us--I won't say abandoning us--for a month-long hiatus in the middle of this fall's campaign, comedian Bill Maher gave us a command:  we must keep as our priority the defeat of Donald Trump.  He used that argument in his "New Rules" closing segment as the reason he would relent on his efforts to ridicule those who would  impede bathroom access for transgender people.

I suppose that one can wait; the embarrassment the North Carolina law to that effect is having on the re-election campaign of its Governor McCrory is its own deserved reward.  With regard to Mr. Trump, though, the Drumpfite policy of Assured Self-Destruction seems to be taking care of that concern on its own--though we should never resist the openings to slag him when they present themselves.  This week, we can see that Drumpf has adopted his Apprentice TV strategy ("you're fired") in managing his campaign efforts, and I have no doubt that the latest stooge, the one of Breitbart heritage, will be the next scapegoat for the campaign's continued failures.  At this point, Trump's single hope is what I have called the "David Duke Effect", the possibility that the poll numbers conceal a large number of bigots who will vote for Trump on Election Day but won't own up to it beforehand, either out of ethical guilt or fear of being ridiculous. Those people, to the extent they exist and are registered to vote, will find a reason to justify this cowardly behavior when the time comes.

Instead, we can expand our objectives beyond the mere Electoral College defeat of Trump; as we discussed last time, Trump's chances boil down to winning all of Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio (along with North Carolina), and they equate to those of winning Pennsylvania (or if not PA, then sweeping New Hampshire, Nevada, and Iowa), where Clinton is winning now by about 10 points in polls. Meanwhile, Clinton is imperiling Trump's chances in such "automatic" red states as Georiga, Arizona, and even Missouri and Utah.

The number one priority, then, if Trump's campaign (which so far is amateurish and poorly focused) does not turn things around, will be to utilize his poor performance and inferior candidacy at the top of the ticket to degrade the Republicans'  status across the country.  Again, most of the best opportunities in Senate races coincide with the most important state races for the Presidency, so organizing efforts should focus naturally on those seven states.  In addition, though, there are seats which can and should be gained in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana--the latter, now that Evan Bayh has entered the race, moves from a possibility to a highly promising target.  Besides those three, New Hampshire appears to be the most likely candidate as the fourth Senate pick-up, the minimum requirement to gain control of the Senate. Beyond that, PA, OH, and now, NC, are 50-50 chances, with additional targets worth pursuing in AZ, MO, FL, and IA.  A fifth pick-up out of all these is more than desirable; one state's Senate seat currently held by a Democrat, Nevada, is endangered--Catherine Cortez Musto is currently slightly behind in the polling.

The House picture is more complex and, in general, less hopeful.  A landslide victory at the top of the ticket is the best--probably the only--possibility to enable the Democrats to make up the 30 seat gain needed, as the number of districts held currently by Republicans in which political affiliations and the strength of candidates would favor a pick-up is considerably smaller than that. I am deluged by emails from prospective Democratic House candidates and Democratic Representatives in close races; most or all of those appeals are coming from legitimately contested races, but I cannot distinguish among them (at least, not yet), so I am just giving to the DCCC (headed by my Congressman, the estimable Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico), trusting that group will do the critical analysis to identify how to allocate their resources to maximize the result.

I have my eyes on the long-term prize, the destruction of the Republican party.  This year's campaign is all that I could hope for, in terms of highlighting the split between the Cruzian hard-core conservatives and the Drumpfist backward-looking bigots. No doubt they will do their best to pretend they can cooperate, both as Election Day nears and then after the debacle that seems likely that day, but I'm not buying it.  2018 will be a head fake in the big picture, as the midyear political dynamics will favor the Republicans, as will the number and type of Senate seats the Democrats will have to defend; however, there will be a number of state races, for governor and state legislatures, that will be critical for control of redistricting after the 2020 census.  2020 will be the key year in determining whether the Republicans can recover the momentum they have lost since 2004 or whether their trend remains unmistakably downward:  I think either the Cruz Lizard at the top of the ticket or a toned-down Drumpfist (a contradiction in terms?) would be a disaster; only a more moderate, diversity-welcoming candidate can reverse their decline.

Clinton vs. Trump shows more clearly than ever that the Democrats have now become the natural governing party; the failure of the Republican-controlled Congress is equally evident, and it will be the future humiliation of Paul Ryan by his party that will make that clear to all.  I anticipate fireworks with regard to a battle for control of the Supreme Court, but if the Democrats have control of the Senate and of the White House, the outcome can only be delayed, not prevented, by dubious filibuster.

The Olympics in the Side-View Mirror
I have to admit that I was somewhat wrong in a couple of aspects of my preview:  the NBC coverage on TV has not been as good as I had hoped, and the welcome of Rio's Cariocas  to the world's visitors has been better than feared, while the beauty of the setting is as advertised.

With regard to NBC, the cynicism of the programming and advertising is all too typical.  The prime-time network telecasts are all-American, heavy on the personal profiles, setting up long ad breaks, and light on the variety of sports being presented. Their auxiliary channels have not adequately compensated for the weakness on the network telecast.  I would cite as highlights the volleyball, men's and women's, indoor and beach, and, of course, the track and field (more track than field) . The soccer was OK--at least they carried the final between Brazil and Germany live on one of the other channels--that was probably the second highlight of the games (after Usain Bolt) in the eyes of the world.  The coverage of the return to the Olympics of golf on NBC-owned Golf Channel was surprisingly not as sleep-inducing as golf on TV usually is. After that, I have little good to say about the coverage:  I get it that NBC has to recoup the billions they paid for the rights and deliver the ratings they promised to their corporate bosses and in their ad sales, but the other channels did not have those limitations--and broadening the range of coverage  could extend their ratings. For example, where was table tennis?  Millions of Chinese-Americans would like to know; what I heard was that their attempts to plug into Chinese TV were most difficult.  Field hockey? Badminton? Kayaking? Cycling (if there were no Americans or Brits in the final)?  You may think I'm kidding; I'm not. 

The multiple-channel viewing of the "NBC Olympic Experience" was disappointing; the channels to choose from didn't have Olympics half the time, and the interface was slow and clumsy.  I tried the
"live streaming of all events" as always with live streaming (at least for me), was a rabbit hole (what is userID and PIN for your cable service? I don't have one).  Well, maybe they can get it right in four years.

Finally, the prediction of dominance of the American women's team was accurate (except for the surprise upset in the quarterfinals of UNWNT, the US women's soccer team, which actually adds to the interest level for future women's soccer competition).  The operative comparison for US medal levels is not recent summer Olympics but 1984, when the Soviet Union boycotted "our" Los Angeles Olympics to get revenge for our (Afghanistan-inspired) boycott of Moscow's 1980 one. I'll note the final total comparison in a comment in a day or two when the dust settles.

The two TV personal profiles that did turn my head somewhat were both focused on Brazilians:  the original "Girl from Ipanema" from the song--there is a specific one, she is in her 70's, still very attractive--and the story of Vanderlei di Lima, the marathon runner who was leading in 2004's race in Athens when he was attacked by a deranged spectator.  Vanderlei's mojo was disturbed by the incident (once they pulled off the intruder), but he pulled it together and won the bronze medal.  For the opening ceremony in Rio, he was selected as the national hero who lit the Olympic flame in the Stadium.


I apologize for publishing the first draft yesterday, filled with errors.  I was in a hurry to leave on a car trip and -yes--distracted by the Olympics.

Post-Pre- and Pre-: Stuff

Oscars Post-Mortem
I didn't follow my advice with the Oscars telecast; I watched it all. The most dramatic moment was Lady Gaga's song for survivors of sexual abuse, "Until It Happens to You"--which, surprisingly and disappointingly, did not win the award for best song (the winning song was an unspeakably sappy Sam Smith one). Chris Rock did the expected and skewered the Academy for the expression of its subtle racism in the absence of nominees for persons of color; he did it in ways both "kidding on the square" and outright humorous (the best was his interviews with filmgoers in Compton, none of whom had seen the movies nominated for the major awards).

As for the results, I hit a couple of the upsets--that of Mark Rylance for Supporting Actor and that "Revenant" might not be a sure thing for Best Picture (though I would've picked "The Big Short" rather than "Spotlight"). The predictwise.com bettors' picks would not have made much money if you had bet with them, as most of their winning picks were odds-on favorites, but they would have helped with your local pool. They had 17 of 24 correct, with three of the misses being in the random "Shorts" categories. In particular, they previewed correctly the sweep of many of the technical categories by the "Mad Max" movie; in that regard, the biggest surprise was the miss on the Visual Effects award--they had the "Star Wars" movie winning, over "Mad Max", but the winner was the (generally unviewed) artificial intelligence sci-fi pic "Ex Machina", which featured Alicia Vikander as the living robot--the same person who won for Supporting Actress in "Carol" (one that I missed).
Dump Drumpf Update
It seems, finally, that the effort to stop Donald Trump (or "Drumpf", as John Oliver recently disclosed Trump's original family name to be) is getting some traction.  And, it's not a moment too soon.  As I identified several months ago (back in September, though I had the principal antagonists wrong), if Trump takes the winner-take-all primary in Florida on March 15 (and the one in Ohio the same day), it will essentially be all over.

Last night's results showed that the latest affronts to common decency by Trump may have eroded his momentum--in the last, disastrously juvenile Republican debate, in his equivocating response to Klansman David Duke's support for his candidacy, or possibly as a result of sustained takedown attempts from Oliver, from 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, and others.  The benefit, at least last night, accrued to Ted Cruz, as he won caucuses in Kansas and Maine, and performed well above expectation in primaries in Louisiana and Kentucky.  The Maine result was the most surprising--Trump dismissed it with a good quip and dig at Cruz' citizenship status, that it was "because it's so close to Canada"--as he showed, for the first time, the ability to win outside of states bordering on Texas.  Cruz called for the other contenders in the race, Marco Rubio and John Kasich, to get out and let him--Cruz--take on Trump mano a mano.  Trump, also, suggested Rubio was toast and should get out, as he also longs for the singular showdown with Cruz.

Rubio and Kasich, understandably, are not taking their campaign advice from their rivals.  They will aim to win their respective home states' primaries on Mar. 15--they will be must-wins to sustain their candidacies--and to show some momentum for their own campaigns in the meantime.   Rubio will be looking for his second primary victory today in Puerto Rico, and Kasich is promising some improved result in Michigan on Tuesday.  They show some sign of understanding that the best chance to stop Trump is to split delegate allotments three or four ways, each of Trump's rivals focusing his efforts in the states where good results are most likely, and thereby keeping him from getting an absolute majority of delegates going into the party's convention.

Cruz, on the other hand, does not seem to be a party to the understanding.  To reinforce his anti-Rubio argument, he shows signs of making an effort to compete in Florida.  In doing so, he risks becoming defamed as the "Nader" of the Republicans' nomination campaign:  if his efforts, which are extremely unlikely to win the state's delegates, spoil Rubio's hopes to do so, it would knock Rubio out, but also make Trump's mathematical chances much more favorable.  Rubio's having a hard enough time in Florida as it is.  Ted may also try to "Cruz-ify" Kasich in Ohio with a similar, ultimately self-defeating strategy, one which is very much in keeping with his egomaniacal, antisocial nature.

Below is a screen scrape from predictit.org this morning, showing the status of a few of the headline markets, and applying my son's "Drumpfinator" software that he downloaded from John Oliver's website (it magically substitutes "Drumpf" for "Trump" anywhere it appears on your computer's screen)  Some of the formatting may be lost, but you may be able to click on the panels and link through to the original pages (which address, clockwise from the top left, the top two choices for Democratic nomination, Republican nomination, 2016 Presidential election winner, Michigan Democratic primary, Michigan Republican primary, and for the Maine Democratic caucuses, to be held tonight).

Featured Markets

These are popular political markets that receive a significant amount of attention from the press and the political community.

Who will be the 2016 Democratic nominee?

Top Predictions			6975
Clinton  685								86¢		1¢
Sanders  952								15¢		1¢

Who will be the 2016 Republican nominee?

Top Predictions			46751
Drumpf  2764								65¢		NC
Cruz  507								20¢		2¢

Who will win the 2016 U.S. presidential election?

Top Predictions			6393
Clinton  382								58¢		2¢
Drumpf  791								27¢		2¢

Who'll win the Maine Democratic caucuses?

Top Predictions			216
Sanders  6								97¢		3¢
Clinton								5¢		4¢

Who'll win the Michigan Republican primary?

Top Predictions			234
Drumpf  2								86¢		16¢
Cruz  1								10¢		3¢

Who'll win the Michigan Democratic primary?

Top Predictions			102
Clinton								91¢		1¢
Sanders  7								8¢		1¢