Icons of Corruption

...of the Judiciary:  Brett Kavanaugh
There will be a shared pretense of Senators carefully considering the Supreme Court nominee's record, of interviewing him privately and publicly to hear his noncommittal responses, followed by both sides lining up around party lines for the final advise-and-consent approval.  The notion of impartial justices ruling purely on principles of law has completely given way to political power plays, completing a transition evident late in the last century (bitter, partisan confirmation hearings) and confirmed by the historic disaster of the Bush v. Gore decision.

Kavanaugh is "qualified", in the sense of having the resume one would expect of a Supreme Court justice, applying typical vetting criteria (law background, practice as a Supreme Court clerk and as a senior judge).  The most important criterion, though, is the political one, and that will determine how the votes will fall.  Kavanaugh is a proven party hack (Bush acolyte, drafter of Clinton bill of impeachment) and thus is a fair replacement for Anthony Kennedy (another hack).   Some analyses suggest he will be substantially further to "the right" than Kennedy--that will be seen in the fullness of time..   What I expect is that he, and Chief Justice Roberts as well, will behave themselves politically, trying in their decisions and opinions to temper the radical right-wing views of Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito, in order to reduce public criticism of the Supreme Court and try to preclude its extremism becoming the basis for a wipeout defeat of their party in 2020 (and possible court-packing following that by victorious, vengeful Democrats).

The strategy of the timing of the Kennedy resignation and Kavanaugh nomination is a political one: it's designed to allow the Republicans to use the united (or near-united) Democratic opposition in the midterm elections to support their claim that it is Democratic obstruction which is impeding their ability to govern.  Not very original, but it may well work to inspire more of their base to turn out and avoid serious damage in the 2018 election.  This nasty piece of business (the confirmation) will wrap up before November, most likely in late September--that's something that Senators of both parties will be able to agree upon:  for Mitch McConnell, it eliminates the risk of a bad election outcome preventing confirmation, and for Democratic candidates in close elections, it gets the distraction out of the way so they can campaign.

For those who insist on the importance of parsing nominees' public statements in the confirmation process, I would suggest focusing on Kavanaugh's answer to one question (which must be asked):  Does your interpretation of the Constitution include an affirmation of individuals' right to privacy?  That is the fundamental finding behind Roe v. Wade, and the question of a fundamental right to privacy is one which will come up in other, very important contexts throughout Kavanaugh's term in the Court.  Kavanaugh is reputed to be "textualist", which suggests he would be negative on the question if he were to answer honestly (I don't expect him to do that, though--he will only betray his true views later, when it's too late.)

I see little chance that any of the Republican senators will defect from lockstep support of the second Drumpfian Supreme Court nominee.  If none do, it may appear that certain vulnerable "Red State Democrats" up for re-election are off the hook, in terms of their votes being decisive.  This notion led some  Democrats to argue that these vulnerable candidates should be free to vote according to "their conscience"--more like their conscious evaluation of the net political benefit to go one way or the other.  No doubt Manchin in W.Va., Heitkamp in N.D., Tester in Mont., McCaskill in Mo., Donnelly in Ind., and Nelson in Fla. will closely monitor polling of their constituents' preference on the confirmation vote (in crosstabs with party registration and intention of vote on the Senate race itself). and will let that data guide their individual consciences. 

I don't get to vote on these races, except in response to the constant emails I get* asking for money (all of these incumbents are actively soliciting me through email except Heitkamp--she seems to be more interested in independents than Democrats).  One thing I can guarantee all these candidates is that they will not get any more money from me if they vote to confirm.  (I just surprised myself by making a contribution for Manchin in response to an attractive email solicitation, and Nelson and Donnelly have received money from me in the past.)   For me, there is one factor that should override for any true Democrat:  let's call it the "Merrick Garland factor".

In this regard, I have added one "litmus test" issue (in this case one specifically for Democratic Senators) to the short list of my absolute requirements for those seeking my support (most meaningfully, through my contributions):  common-sense on guns (no one advocating more guns gets my support); no denying climate change; and openness to major electoral reform (gerrymandering, Electoral College, campaign financing limitation).

...Of the Executive Branch (Scott Pruitt)
A hallmark of the Drumpfian "philosophy" of governing is to appoint incompetents and destructive administrators to Cabinet positions.  There are so many examples: Ben Carson at HUD, Rick Perry at Energy, Betsy DeVos for Education are three clear ones.  Maybe the worst appointment of all (except for the non-Cabinet appointments of Michael Flynn, and then later John Bolton, as  his National Security Adviser)  was Scott Pruitt, who proved to be toxic in every way.  Trump was tolerant of his wasteful spending and self-aggrandizing paranoia, positively supportive of his anti-environmental approach to environmental protection, but he ultimately became politically harmful.  So he had to go, but the departure was eased for Drumpf by the fact that he will be able to replace him with a pollution industry lobbyist who was Pruitt's deputy.  More damage to follow.

...Of the Legislative Branch (Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy)
The most serious corrupting influence on our Congress today is the emergence of massive PAC money, and worse, "dark money" from donors whose identities do not have to be made public.  To be honest, this is a problem that plagues both parties and many candidates, and the necessity of constant fund-raising and placating major donors is more than a distraction from true legislative activity.

I am singling out Nunes and Gowdy for the disrespect they have engendered with their perversion of the Congressional power of investigation (which is supposed to be for the purposes of aiding legislation).  Nunes has been colluding with the White House in trying to undermine the Mueller investigation through the House Intellligence Committee which he chairs,  and Gowdy has made a fool of himself in the House Oversight Committee, first with the Benghazi investigation and now with the shameful attacks on FBI agents.

...in the White House itself  (Trump Conflicts of Interest and the Russian Oligarchs)
As I have said before, with the Trump administration, there are no conflicts--only interests.  I leave it to the investigative reporters to detail all the ways in which Trumpian greed intersects with Drumpfian policy (here and here are a couple of relevant links I can recommend).  The key storyline is this:  critical to the survival of the Trump enterprise, in the time around and since the Great Crater, has been the sale of high-end real estate to Russian oligarchs.  For the buyers, this was a proven safe way to get money out of Russia and into legitimate assets:  this is generally referred to as "money laundering".  It is not that the purchase of US real estate is in any way illegal; it's more where the money came from that is shady and that makes these buyers shady.  Most are connected with the regime of Putin, the biggest oligarch/money launderer of them all.

So, Trump Org.  finds them good to do business with, and he isn't going to turn on these "friends"; instead he becomes an apologist for Russian provocations.  He seems to have no problem with Putin's agenda item of trying to weaken the West and their alliances, as America's allies have snubbed Russia and coddled the Ukraine, which has gone back and forth but is currently antagonistic toward Russia.  For its part, Russia has found Ukraine a suitable target for its expansion and disruption efforts.

Meanwhile, the Trump offspring are free to make hay from their political connection to the President, and they will make the most of it while they can.  Other Trump cronies, like Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, are wealthy enough, but still encouraged to find an angle to benefit if they so choose.

The Russia/Trump collusion to help the Republican win the 2016 election was just business:  there was no intention to betray the US or even to break laws, just that there might have been a few statutory limitations that got in the way.   Russian hacking of Democratic databases, and infiltration of Facebook, are only standard practice, the illegal parts generally deniable or protected by national boundaries, and the only interruption in the activity will be to build new cover when necessary.

This is what is going on; the only remedy seems to be the will of voters to defeat Drumpfites, if it can be mustered, this year and then again in 2020.   All of what I say here will come out eventually (even without the Trump tax returns, though those will likely become part of the story), but I have no confidence at all that it will sway Republican voters, Republican legislators, or Republican judges from their great partisan suck-up to this petty dictator.


*Over 200 emails asking for money on June 30--every single one referring to their second-quarter deadline at midnight.  When will they learn that I don't care about their deadlines?  In fact, I would prefer to have lower numbers come out of those deadline reports from the Federal Election Commission, in order to reduce the dollar arms race.

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.

Looking for Relief -- Different Takes

There must be some kind of way outta here

Said the joker to the thief

There's too much confusion

I can't get no relief

--Bob Dylan, "All Along the Watchtower"

First, Bob himself has provided me a spot of relief, with regard to the Nobel Prize for Literature he has recently been announced to have won.  After the announcement, the silence from Dylan was troubling:  was he going to refuse the award?  Was he, a person with at least some nodding acquaintance of literature (I say that, based on some of the literary references in his songs), planning on disparaging the artistic quality of his own life's work?  Well, no--he was either too busy with his current concert tour, or he didn't know what to say about it at first.  In an interview with Rolling Stone, he acknowledged the honor, didn't opine on whether he deserved it, and said he would attend the ceremony if at all possible. 

How Do You Spell Relief?

This phrase has insinuated itself into American dialogue, though it does not have a natural sense outside of its original context.  That context, I must explain for you Gen X and Millennial readers, was the TV ad for Rolaids antacid tablets in the '70's, one that used the "fake testimonial" approach with actors answering the question in a variety of ways describing the product's many benefits, with the ad concluding with the 'correct answer', spelling the product name out. 

It didn't mean much to me, though the phrase embedded itself in my mind through repetition; however, in the past couple of years I have had a bit of an issue with acid reflux, so I have tried the various products.  Rolaids are OK, maybe a little better than their close cousin Tums (which is recommended for the heartburn suffered by pregnant women because of its calcium), but for me, I spell relief "GAVISCOM".  

A final note on this obscure subject:  Has anyone ever noticed, with regard to this slogan, that "to spell" has a meaning almost the same as "to relieve"?  The only difference is that spelling would seem to be always a temporary form of relief.  But then, is any form of relief permanent? 

The Endless Campaign

Certainly that question has arisen, several times, with regard to the presidential campaign.  We have felt relieved after each debate, as Clinton demonstrated her mastery of the issues and her ability to trade verbal punches with the big bully on the other side.  We have felt relieved a couple of other times when her lead in the polls seemed safe, usually because Donald Trump said something or did something so outrageous that even loyal but sane Republicans wavered in their support for him. 

Always, though, like lost lambs, they seem to wander back to their political home base.  So, recognizing this, I have resisted the temptation to revise during those brief "spells" of relative comfort my somewhat cautious prediction, made back in September. I will stand by those predictions (on the Presidential side, a 3.9% margin for Hillary in the popular vote, and a 296-242 Electoral College victory). 

Indeed, the gap has been narrowing in the past few days, even before this latest "bombshell"--the letter from FBI Director James Comey to Congressional committee chairmen that the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails will take a new turn.  With the discovery of a large cache of unknown emails involving top Clinton aide Huma Abedian on a computer owned by former Congressman Anthony Weiner (Abedin's estranged husband), the FBI has something new to examine for any possible crime related to Clinton's use of a private server, and the volume of emails linked to the Weiner laptop (I have read the number 650,000!) will ensure that resolution will not be swift. 

"Bombshell" is the term I have seen applied to this news item in most of the articles, along with "October surprise" (it just made it in time to fit that cliche).  "Bombshell" is a bit exaggerated when it is used in most cases, but I think it is appropriate here:  to carry the metaphor further, it is a powerful bit of unexploded ordnance that has embedded itself in Clinton's "electoral firewall".  We do not yet know if it will prove to be a dud, or a lethal explosive, one that will break open what has frequently appeared to be an Electoral College fortress ensuring her victory. 

It does seem farfetched that this recycled story would produce such a breakthrough for Trump, though he has already declared it a clincher for his "Crooked Hillary" characterization. First, they will have to "de-dupe" those emails found against all the ones they have already reviewed--that alone could take weeks.  If they were ever to find anything new, there would be issues about chain of evidence and the legality of the warrant; issues have been raised about the propriety of the letter, and so on.  The story likely has already done all that it can do in the run-up to the election, which is to raise another momentum-stopping round of negative press for Hillary, distracting the public from Trump's transgressions, and possibly reducing the damage to the Republican Senate and House campaigns which appeared to be developing. 

I can understand the logic which drove FBI Director Comey to take the action he did.  Though he is a regular Republican, I do not accuse him of partisan motives (others have been quick to do so), but I would say he was playing office politics. The word came out that many in the agency were dissatisfied with the recommendation against referring any possible charges against Clinton in July, so when this new angle opened up, the pressure was heavy to follow it--even if it seemed that the case had already been closed.  His manner of communicating it--in fact, the fact that he did communicate it--left much to be desired, as his letter was so vague that it was unclear whether there had already been any significant discovery. It even was vague about the circumstances of the discovery (though various leaks soon made it clear whose laptop, and the investigation--of Weiner possibly violating the law through sexual texts sent to an underage girl--which led to it).  Despite Comey having a 10-year term which would go to 2023, I think President Clinton would be well justified if she requested his resignation, sometime after inauguration, when the emails have been reviewed and nothing new found.  Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans are already talking "pre-impeachment" hearings! 

At any rate, though this may be a story ultimately about nothing--it will increase Election Day uncertainty, perhaps, but I do not believe it will change many people's minds, not there are that many open to change for any reason--it is certainly the most dramatic event (so far) of Act IV, Scene 4 of our 2016 Political Drama.  Further, going back to the "no relief" theme, we can see that the bickering will continue unabated after the election, with now some new danger of a contested outcome, followed immediately with the beginning of battle cries for the 2018 campaign (in which the Democrats will go back to being the underdogs), and before long, talk will be turning  to the dreaded 2020 campaign.  I can see it clearly (with my "20/20 Vision"--sorry!)  

Surely you don't want to go through this again, do you, Hillary?  You should relieve yourself (and the rest of us) of this misery and announce, after the 2018 midterm elections, that you will choose not to stand for re-election. 

Relief from Tragedy

One topic which Donald Trump briefly brought up in the debates which might have been more convincing was on the assistance the Clinton Foundation has provided to Haiti over the years. ("billions"?)  He mentioned simply that "they don't want your Foundation over there anymore", or words to that effect, but he failed to connect the dots.  Hurricane Matthew showed that, whatever the combined efforts of the many organizations, with the Clinton Foundation prominent among them, over so many years, the place is still, literally, a disaster area, even when it hasn't just been victimized by an earthquake, tidal wave, epidemic, or hurricane.  

Clearly, Trump was not the best messenger to announce the failure of Clinton Foundation philanthropy, what with his miserable tax-dodge, self-serving joke that is the Trump Foundation. I'm guessing that the Haitians that Trump talked to in South Florida are probably more peeved that the flow of graft to them has been interrupted. Still, when it comes to convincing donors for their causes, most of the arguments coming from the relief organizations seem to be much more pleas for sympathy than arguments of proven effectiveness. Not that we shouldn't feel the urge to help our fellows when they suffer, clearly we should, but we can look back at the causes of the past and have our doubts--in spite of Live Aid, they starve in East Africa; Farm Aid recipients are still losing their farms;  Bangladesh is still Bangladesh, and Haiti is, as much as ever, still Haiti.   Relief, too often, is not just temporary, but deceptively unrelieving.  Can we hope for better? 

Baseball:  Overuse of Relief? 

Well, baseball is one area in which relief can be final: the "closer" gets to be that guy who is expected to provide finality to his relief pitching.  Unfortunately, most relief in real life is more like that of the middle reliever, who can expect no more than to pass on to others an acceptable intermediate result, or worse, the mop-up long reliever, sent in to get the team through to the other side of a hopeless scenario, in whatever condition.  

One thing that seems to have changed, perhaps permanently so, is the role of relief pitching vs. starting pitching in the postseason.  Even though team rosters have shifted toward more pitchers and less hitter/fielders, squads cannot rely on their deep bullpens to get them successfully through the 162-game regular season.  They need a strong rotation of four to six healthy starting pitchers to win with enough consistency to make it to the postseason playoffs.  In the playoffs and the World Series games, though, getting a strong starting pitching outing seems barely necessary, and certainly not sufficient.  Managers are now routinely pulling playoff game starters after less than five innings, even when they are effective, and using six and seven pitchers in a nine-inning game. 

The Kansas City Royals showed the way last year, using a thin starting rotation relatively sparingly and relying upon the quality and quantity of their bullpen pitching.  This year, the Cleveland Indians are following in their path.  The Indians' rotation has been decimated by injuries, though in all honesty, their starters have generally been well-prepared and have improved upon their regular-season level of performance.  It has been their relief pitching, though, which has made the difference in their surprising run through the first two rounds of playoffs and to the brink of World Series victory. 

At the same time, though, the Royals and Indians' path is not such an easy one to duplicate.  The Dodgers had a premier closer, Kenley Jansen, who remained basically untouched, though overworked, but gaps appeared elsewhere in the bullpen (and, in one game at least, a starting pitcher was pulled too soon), which allowed the Cubs to pull out late-inning victories and defeat them.  The Cubs have shown similar weakness in the depth of their relief corps, despite having one of the best in the business, Aroldis Chapman, as their closer.  The pattern in their three World Series losses has been falling slightly behind in the battle of the starters, then the deficit opens up as their relievers are outpitched by the Indians'. 

It has long been true that, in the World Series, good pitching generally can shut down even the best hitting teams. While there have been more 1-0 games than usual in the postseason this year, it is not that runs have been hard to find, and the trend seen during the regular season for an increase in home runs seems to have continued.  The game seems to be a matter of pitchers with great ability to throw curves of various kinds for short periods of time and batters who can't hit those pitches.  And woe to the team that can't produce 4-5 innings per game of star quality relief. 

Act IV, Scene 3: Live Blog from the 15-rounder

I will try an experiment and post updates through the evening.  I have to warn you that I may interleave my comments on the debate with ones on the Cubs-Dodgers game, in which I have also considerable emotional investment.  As I've said previously, I'm rooting for the Cubs to win it all, on behalf of my father, a lifelong Cubs fan. 

13th Round:  Entitlements
Wallace criticizes both sides' programs.  Social Security and Medicare:  will you consider a grand bargain with tax increases and benefit cuts?
Trump:  Obamacare (not an entitlement program)
Clinton:  raise Social Security tax on wealthy ("assuming Donald can't figure out a way to get out of it" Donald "such a nasty woman!")  No cuts to benefits!   Affordable Care Act - extended Medicare Trust fund.

14th Round Closing Statements"
Wallace:  Why should you be President?  (No closing statements agreed by the campaigns.)
Clinton:   Help all of you.  Jobs, education.

15th Round Trump's Turn
Trump:  She's raising the money from the people she wants to control. (What?)  Immigrants. Policemen and women disrespected, law and order.  I will do more for African-Americans and Latinos.  We can not take four more years of Barack Obama, and that's what you get with her.

Closing! They do not shake hands. 

First reaction on CNN:  Astonishing he would not agree to abide by the results of the election.
Second reaction:  he was well-prepared, except for that.

I apologize for the small-type formats--I've tried to fix them four times and Blogger has not yet cooperaated. 

Result:  the slight edge Clinton had became a technical knockout. 

10th Round:  Free-for-all--What about Aleppo? 
Trump quotes John Podesta (Wikileaks) and Bernie Sanders against her.  Poor choice of Clinton "opponents".   He says Assad is a lot smarter than her and Obama. More about appeasing Iran.  He is opposed to helping the anti-Assad rebels?  Syrian refugees Trojan horse. "Lots of luck, Hillary"--he believes he will lose!

11th Round:  No-fly Zone
A provocative policy, contrary to Obama's--she answers carefully.  Refugees--the 4-year-old boy. She hasn't talked enough about Americans, though.  Trump butts in and insults our military/diplomatic leadership.

12th Round:  Our National Debt
Wallace quotes some group saying debt would increase a lot under Clinton and much more under Trump. Trump:  They're wrong, we are creating an economic machine. Take back our jobs--we don't make anything anymore.  We should use businessmen to negotiate our trade deals, instead of "political hacks". (He ignores the fact that the deals are done to benefit US business, will she?)
Clinton's off topic a bit with her attack on Trump for attacking Reagan (in the same terms as now); she has a natural edge on this.  "Middle-out growth" her new phrase to try.

Ninth round:  Syria
Wallace asks about the attack on Mosul, whether we would put troops in to hold it.  Clinton has the first answer, gets to express her position (but no troops, including no-fly zone, negotiation with all parties)..  Trump:  why didn't we make a sneak attack?  She is helping Iran.  Their leaders (ISIS) are smart. 

Sixth round:  Fitness
Wallace asks Trump a tough one, on the women who accused him.  Trump blames it all on the Clinton campaign. The stories have been "largely debunked".  "I want to talk about something slightly different--the emails."
Clinton hits deeply; Trump accuses Clinton campaign of provoking violence at Trump rallies.

Seventh round:  Conflicts of Interest  
Battle of the foundations--slight edge to Clinton over the laughable Trump foundation.  Clinton successfully turns it to his lack of tax payment. Trump going over the top:  you should have changed the law. Clinton doesn't get to answer:  Trump does not know how a bill becomes law.

Eighth round:  Election rigged
That proposition bet goes to Yes--would "rigged" be mentioned by the moderator.   I bet Yes at 57%, market was at 54%. at the debate's start, but it had dipped to 20%.

 Trump refuses to endorse the outcome of the election.  He's a LOSER, and a bad loser at that.  Wallace lectures him on that failure.  Clinton wins big here.

4th round: Russia
The punches are thrown wildly on this topic, which Wallace does not introduce:  Hillary with very effective body blows against Trump, who brings up nukes--Hillary well-prepared for that one.  10 people who have had the codes have said Donald should never have them.  Donald calls her a liar.

Fifth: Taxes
Hillary:  wealthy will pay their fair share--will she avoid the dig at Donald for not paying his? Yes!
Trump: Does not answer the question about his tax plan.  Instead goes back to other countries:  why aren't they paying us? Trade - NAFTA.  
Hillary does well to defend Obama's program and avoid criticizing its scale (as Wallace suggested). 
Trump: India grows at 8%; CHINA - at 7% and its a terrible problem.  Last jobs report, it was so bad. All because of the bill her husband passed.   Trans-Pacific Partnership:  they actually fact-checked, and I was right. (for once!) When you ran the State Department, $6 billion dollars disappeared (a new one!)
Went on long, not decisive.

First Rounds
The debate begins:  Trump to his corner, Clinton goes to hers as well.  0 for 1 on the bets.  
The next one that may get decided is whether the words "Merrick Garland" will be mentioned by the moderator, with the topic being the Supreme Court.  I bet Yes at 42%; that has now gone down to 10%.  I won't sell at that price; I will hold and probably lose.

Donald Trump on the Supreme Court:  lame attack on Justice Ginsburg (I'm looking for Hillary to appoint Barbara Mikulski to replace her as the "aggressive woman" on the bench), for him it's all about the Second Amendment.

Guns:  Trump Chicago blah-blah, sniff.  Abortion:  Trump overturn Roe v. Wade. Clinton:  Trump said "women should be punished".   Chris Wallace puts out the partial-birth abortion chum for Trump.

Immigration: Trump - Strong borders; no drugs; all the border police, they want the wall. Then we'll decide what to do with the people (no deportation talk today).  Clinton takes on Trump on the deportation force, that Drumpf "choked" with the Mexican President. Trump:  Clinton wanted "the wall". Clinton:  takes on the question about what to do about undocumented workers, throws some shade on Trump's employment of them.

"Open borders" - a proposition bet as to whether the moderator would mention it. Trump thanks Chris Wallace for it.  Hillary uses it to turn on Trump for encouraging Russian espionage.  "Nice pivot"--says Trump--fair enough!

Setting the Scene
This is Las Vegas, and I feel that Trump will feel at home and ready to gamble it all.  The pattern I expect is a reasonably sane exchange for an hour, and a last half-hour when they both let it all loose: Trump will bring out his heaviest opposition research ammunition, and Clinton will probably counter-attack.

Predictit.org has set up several proposition bets on the night, which I will go through shortly (time permitting), particularly around whether various words will be uttered, by the moderator, the participants, or by either.  One proposition that I would have liked to see is whether the word "fraud" will come up.  It would need some severe provocation for her to pull it out, but I expect that will be present.  As in:

Your pretense to represent the working families' interest is a fraud.
Your tax plan is a fraud designed to benefit you, your businesses, and a few cronies.
Your attempts to present yourself as a patriot is a fraud:  you are a draft-dodger who doesn't pay his fair share of Federal taxes.
You defrauded your investors and took the losses for yourself; you defrauded thousands of persons who enrolled in your university, performed services for you, or trusted you enough to be employed by you.
You have defrauded the Republican primary voters who chose you thinking you were a Republican, you have defrauded those who thought you were a populist and not a snobby elitist; you have defrauded those who believed you had integrity, morals, ethics.
Your hair is fake, your complexion is fake, your posture as a successful businessman is largely a fake. You have shown amazing audacity in the scale of your frauds, and now you want to take it to a gigantically new level.
My fellow Americans, the Drumpfster is a fraudster!

I have recouped some paper reversals of gains suffered when the polling gap narrowed almost to the vanishing point--I am back to about 50% profit on my account. The response since then has overshot somewhat, which has given me the opportunity of hedging certain bets.  I don't anticipate any major flips from here to the finishing line, but I am edging somewhat toward a narrowing of the gap by Election Day.  I will post later some of my principal positions, and what action is going on with them tonight.
In the meantime, the first proposition bet is whether they will shake hands at the beginning.  I bet yes at 53%; it has moved to 64% Yes,

And now, we start, with Chris Wallace--for Fox News, a very fair moderator.

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.

Pastimes - Pt. 2

Our "National" One
The regular season of baseball will wrap up in the next week, and there will be plenty of critical moments in games with direct effect on the qualification for postseason play. For this, we can thank the addition of the Wild Card (1995), and particularly the second Wild Card (2012).  All six of the division championships are now basically locked up (the clinching games in a couple should occur early this week).  Without the wild-card spots, the last week of the season would now be just a mop-up exercise; instead, there are 10 teams with a mathematical possibility of making the playoffs in the American League, and eight in the National League, of which five in each league will actually participate in the postseason.  The positive effect on late-season attendance is what you would expect.

The prospect of  a wild-card berth, one game to win or go home, might seem a tease, but it is not so. Because of the tightly contested races for the spots that seem to occur every year, typically at least one wild-card team will come into the playoffs as a red-hot meteor which can blast through a round or more of the longer series.  In fact, in the 21 years since baseball introduced the wild card, six wild-card teams have won the World Series and five more ended as the World Series losers; seven more made it to League Championship Series of one league or the other.  In two years, 2002 and 2014, both teams in the World Series were divisional also-rans.

In the National League, where the postseason matchups are basically set, I would be surprised if one of the wild-card teams made such a run.  Although Miami and Pittsburgh are technically still alive, the two spots will be divided among three teams:  St. Louis, San Francisco, and the New York Mets, The survivor among them will face the best team in the major leagues during the regular season, the Chicago Cubs, who will come in well-rested and with their starting pitching rotation set.  An upset is always possible (the Giants may have some even-year magic going for them), but I would expect the Cubs to pass through and face a tough match-up in the League Championship Series, against either the Washington Nationals or the Los Angeles Dodgers, both formidable squads.

In the American League, everything is up for grabs:  seven teams are in the running for those two wild-card berths, while the three division leaders are virtually tied in their contest for home-field advantage in the playoffs. I would pick the Boston Red Sox, and either AL West winner Texas,or the survivor of the wild-card playoff game, to meet in the League Championship Series.

As for my preseason picks, though I had only two of the six division winners correctly (Cleveland and Chicago), if the Houston Astros, Mets, and Toronto Blue Jays win wild-card spots (not at all unlikely), I will have picked eight of the 10 playoff teams.  Of my picks, only the Arizona Cardinals are definitely out (I believe the Pirates are still mathematically in it).   My World Series pick--Astros over Mets--would get me somewhat astronomical odds at this point, if I were to bet upon them; they are unlikely to make one of those vaunted wild-card runs for the same reason they are on the outside trying to get in:  too many injuries to starting pitchers.

I end this section with a sad note:  Jose Fernandez, the 24-year-old pitcher for the Miami Marlins, died this morning in a boating accident.  Fernandez, a defector from Cuba, was having an outstanding 2016 season, after two years marred by injury (including a "Tommy John" elbow surgery) after winning NL Rookie of the Year honors in 2013.  If he had remained healthy, he was on a trajectory for a career of Sandy Koufax-type proportions, as he had that kind of talent--great ability to get strikeouts and keep runners off base.  I don't know about his personal qualities, though I have heard they were sterling, but his passing is certainly a great loss to major league baseball.

I will get on the sandbox and argue on another occasion for one or more major league teams based in the Caribbean/Central America (and another in Canada, some consideration for East Asia), but I will say that Fernandez is just another example of how the game has transcended mere "national" status, and that with more quality marketing such as the Wild Card expansion (an idea somewhat stolen from the masters of the craft, the National Football League), baseball could become a sport with global fan support comparable to that of soccer (or at least of rugby or cricket!)

Other Sport, Briefly
Speaking of soccer, the global football season started about a month ago.  As the British might say, in the English Premier League "normal service has been resumed" after the shocking upset championship run by Leicester City last season.  My team, Chelsea, has recovered its mojo somewhat after a disastrous season; with its talent, and a new coach, the Blues should aim at least to rejoin Champions League play next season.  The two Manchester teams are likely to finish in the other two top spots--City is packed with talent (headed by ex-Chelsea player Kevin DeBruyne), while United has ex-Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho (our new nemesis), has added depth, and also has an ex-Chelsea star, Jose Mata (who didn't get along with Mourinho at all when they were both with Chelsea).  Arsenal and Liverpool are also typical top teams that seem to have the means to return to contention.

Otherwise, I see Barcelona, Real Madrid, and Bayern Munich as the teams which have the depth of talent to compete for the Champions League title and dominate their national competitions.

American Football:  I don't get too interested in the season until Thanksgiving or so; I have no opinion on the NFL after Peyton Manning (though it seems the Patriots will take the Brady-gate suspension for ball-tampering in January, 2015 in their stride and do just fine).  In college, I am for any team playing against the SEC or Ohio State; in this regard, I will probably be rooting for the U. of Louisville, which pounded pseudo-SEC team Florida State, ranked #2 at the time, scoring 63 points against them.

Basketball:  I am a little disheartened by the fact that the return of Cleveland and Golden State to the NBA finals, which would be for the third straight year, seems assured before the season even starts (barring season-ending injuries to LeBron, Stephen Curry, or new G.S. Warrior Kevin Durant).  There is some hope that the Indiana Pacers may provide some competition in the Eastern Conference, while in the West, with Oklahoma City and San Antonio weakened, one must look to the  L.A. Clippers, or maybe Portland, to be the opponent in the conference finals.  In any case, GSW will be very hard to stop at any level, and the preseason discussion is about how close they will come to their record-breaking regular season performance last year.

As for the college game--which I should say I enjoy greatly--every year is basically a new beginning, with last year's teams erased by the effects of the NBA draft. I don't spend too much time looking at it until MLK Day or so.  As always, I will be rooting for the Kentucky teams, and against those from North Carolina.  It's petty, but one must stay loyal to one's tribe.

TV
I watched the Emmy awards show this week, something I have rarely done in the past.  For me, it is a way to hear about some of the shows that I never see, not being a subscriber to Netflix or any of those other Internet-only sources.  I was a bit appalled to see all the awards given to "The People vs. O.J.", which for me is just a rehash of one of television's greatest historical failures--the elevation of a sordid celebrity crime scene into a major topic in the national agenda.  I was pleased to see the awards for "Veep", a show that entertained, informed, and then knew when to quit.  I was duly impressed by the diversity of award nominees and winners--apparently some changes were made to the voting process which helped make it possible.  I hope the Motion Picture Academy was paying attention.

I was not that impressed with the hosting by Jimmy Kimmel, who seems to have filled the Jay Leno hole for middle-brow inoffensive comedy.  I will admit that he gets good guests on his show, though if I were in NYC and wanted late-night exposure I would go to Stephen Colbert to be on his show,.  

In the new TV season, I have seen a couple of decent new shows.  One is the wacky comedy set in Heaven, "The Good Place", which posits that the omnipotent essences are "only human", in the sense that they make mistakes, too.  No doubt this paradox will be explained at some point.  

"Designated Survivor", a series which premiered last week, has an interesting, though alarming, premise:  a terrorist attack on the Capitol during the State of the Union address (not impossible) eliminates the President and all of the Cabinet except the titular Cabinet member who is held out from the event for just that eventuality.  I am hoping it doesn't just become "24" redux, with the same star (Kiefer Sutherland); I was pleased to see the lovely Natasha McElhone as his wife--I can't say I've seen her in anything since "The Truman Show", but she looks just the same.
Three bones of contention in the first episode:

1. The Sutherland character met with "the Iran Ambassador" after the event and played some brinkmanship with him, on the suspicion  that his country may have caused the outrage.  It's not impossible that it could happen, but Iran has not had an ambassador to the US in over 35 years. 
2. The script started with the Sutherland character being designated for immediate firing at the beginning, effective the day after the SOTU, being offered the alternate job of "ambassador to the ICAO" (you can look it up; it's an actual minor international organization).  Sutherland character (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development) was actually considering taking the job. 
3. The President would not designate someone who was to be fired the next day to potentially take his job in the case of catastrophe.  Nice irony, but not realistic. 

I must mention "The Night Of...", the miniseries on HBO that concluded a couple of weeks ago. Criminal justice drama is a genre that I am deeply bored with, but this one was remarkable for the performances, for the deep understanding of its real-life practice in New York (or other major US cities), some interesting casting choices (not least John Turturro as a lowlife defense lawyer afflicted with psychosomatic eczema), a nice resolution, and an OK opening for a possible sequel should the moneymen greenlight it.

Then there is the first debate tomorrow.  The election of the Presidency is serious business, but the first debate is basically a TV entertainment show.  My plan is to DVR the debate, watching Monday Night Football (Atlanta at New Orleans), or, if that gets too boring, some televised program (I have recorded "Defying the Nazis:  The Sharps' War" from PBS and may watch that).  After the great event is over, I'll fast forward through the debate after the opening statements, watching for those all-important visual cues.  There might be some substance in the subsequent debates, but I don't expect the solid to outweigh the froth coming out of this one.

I do have some recommendations for Hillary Clinton, who I am sure is fully prepared from a content and strategy point of view:

• Sleep late on Monday.  Make sure you get plenty of sleep. 
• Don't skimp on the time needed to get a real good makeup job--cover those wrinkles, get the lipstick just right.    
• Get the best fashion advice available on 7th Avenue to make sure your clothes give the right message--happy, youthful, plenty of energy, maybe a little shiny.You have the privilege and advantage of being able to wear something other than that boring dark blue suit and red tie that male Presidential candidates always have (though I was impressed by the quality of Romney's suits, and I am sure Trump will go off his branded product for some Armani or something). 
• "There you go again"--this phrase, which would resonate with all those moderate Republican-leaning folks who long for St. Ronnie as their candidate, and are disappointed by This Year's Model--could be the witticism which punctures Trump's pose of reserve and triggers his unbridled anger--something that would be a huge payoff.  It should be reserved for the second or third baldfaced Drumpf lie in a single night, so you might have to wait for the second or third debate.  I am anticipating Trump will keep it more low-key, avoiding overexertion, excessively provocative language, or hyperbole in tomorrow's pilot episode. 

Finally, moving off the small screen to the stage, "Hamilton", the historical rap musical which took Broadway by storm, is coming to our town this week.  I bought some high-priced tickets several months ago (for the third performance here), the proceeds of which will go to a charity, the Foundation Fighting Blindness (HQ a couple hundred yards from my home).   I recognize that the future first American Cabinet Secretary for Culture,* Lin-Manuel Miranda, has withdrawn from the cast, but I'm hoping he will show up to thank the crowd for their contributions. (He is coming to town for the premiere, I believe.)


*I just made that up--France has a Minister for Culture; I don't think it would hurt the US to consider having one.

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.