Little England/ LIttle America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why should those outside Britain care about the outcome?  As our visiting satirical interlocutor John Oliver humorously said to us about his British compadres,

As long as those crooked-toothed scum-goblins keep shooting out royal babies and Doctor Who episodes, who gives a tally-ho fuck what happens to them?

Well, first of all, it appears Wall Street really did care.   Worries about the vote drove the US stock market down last week, no more than a reflection of similar drops in European markets.  Brexit presents uncertainty, which the markets despise, but also probable drop in global trade and productivity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating the Appeal of Presidential Candidates

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

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

Counting this year's presumptive nominees, there are 24 different major-party candidates in those 16 elections.   Richard Nixon is the only three-time candidate (two wins, one loss).  Six ran twice in the chosen time frame; there are no two-time losers (because Adlai Stevenson's first loss was before, in 1952), and there are only two among them who won once and lost once (Jimmy Carter and Poppy Bush).   The other 17 ran only once, and a whole bunch of them never got to demonstrate their policies' theoretical appeal while governing in the White House.   Here is my ranking of them on the policy dimension, from "most appealing" to least.

George McGovern (1972); Stevenson (1956); Dukakis (1980); Hubert Humphrey (1968); John Kerry (2004); Obama (2008-12); Al Gore (2000); Walter Mondale (1984); Jimmy Carter (1976-80); Lyndon Johnson (1964); John Kennedy (1960); WJ Clinton (1992-96); DD Eisenhower (1956); GHW Bush (1988-92); Nixon (1960, 1968-72), Gerald Ford (1976); Mitt Romney (2012); Bob Dole (1996); John McCain (2008); Barry Goldwater (2004); Ronald Reagan (1980-84); and George W. Bush (2000-04).  

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

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

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

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

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

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

The table below gives the results:

Major Party POTUS Candidates Policy Electability Benefit/Threat formula 2008 Obama (also 2012) 6 2 17 1992 WJClinton (also 1996) 12 3 10 1964 Johnson 10 5 10 1960  Kennedy 11 6 8 1976 Carter (also 1980) 9 9 7 1968 Humphrey 4 14 7 2000 Gore 7 13 5 Kerry 5 16 4 Stevenson 2 19 4 2016 HR Clinton 14 17 3 Ford 17 18 1 1996 Dole 19 20 1 1988 Dukakis 3 21 1 1972  McGovern 1 23 1 GHW Bush (also 1992) 15 15 0 Goldwater 22 22 0 1984 Mondale 8 24 -5 2012 Romney 18 11 -7 Nixon (also 1968, 1972) 16 8 -8 McCain 20 12 -8 1956 – Eisenhower 13 4 -9 Drumpf 21 10 -11 GW Bush (also 2004) 24 7 -17 Reagan (also 1984) 23 1 -22

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, I'm Angry, Too!

Let’s Make a Deal with Donald

Donald Trump must immediately eat shit and die. Only a Trumpesquely huge act of self-sacrifice could possibly atone for the damage he has already done to the Republic.

OK, following the DrumpfCon Method, that was my initial negotiating position.  I’m willing to discuss something less than that.  For example, I’m willing to consider the notion that his public self-execution by copravorification could be delayed until the day before the election; that would please House Republicans desperate to avoid his taint and could give hope to the hapless sap lacking in dignity and self-esteem who accepts Drumpf’s VP nomination.  Another alternative might be for him to give up any and all of his positively-valued assets to the Veterans Administration and go into permanent exile in North Korea.  But I will not give on the stipulation that he must first consume massive quantities of his own turds on the Rachel Maddow Show.

Am I serious about these somewhat intemperate demands?  About as serious as The Donald is when he says he will build a beautiful wall with Mexico and make them pay for it, or apply a 45% tariff to all Chinese imports.  Al Franken calls it “kidding on the square”; it's exaggeration.   Am I being unkind, say, to his loved ones, in calling for his reduction to dust, non-biodegradable plastic, and a pile of crap?  First, he is little more than that now; secondly, I’m sure that Melania will be able to find another sugar daddy, even if--as I imagine is the case--he will leave her precious little.  So, no.

What about the profanity here?  I have generally avoided it in this blog, but excrement is a vital part of our ecosystem; we should recognize it for what it is.  We don’t need to bow down to it, as the Republicans are doing, but we should put it to work in fertilizing a better future.

Predictit.org Pricing as a Means of forecasting the Electoral College Vote

My hobbyhorse has opened markets on the outcome of a fair number of states--not all, but the ones where they feel there might be enough interest on both sides to make a market.  These are the two-part choice only:  will the Democratic party win the state (no names of candidates), and will the Republican party win it?  The prices go from 1 to 100 in one-cent increments only, and the opposing side has the complement (i.e., the price for No on Republican party winning=price for Yes on Democrat winning).  The absence of an “Other” I think is an unfortunate, minor omission I will discuss below    

The states are ranked below by their cost to buy Democratic Yes (yesterday’s price--I have today’s to show the amount of random variation/trending that one sees from day to day).   We can  go down the order and see, to a given market-driven level of probability, what states would be expected to go Democratic.  The states marked with a * are those I called true Toss-up states in my previous post with the electoral vote map.

So, we start with those that have no markets but are assumed to be safe Republican (including the 1 EV in NE that went for Obama in 2008; I’d love to see a market just on that one):

States (EV)	6/4 Price for Democratic Yes  (6/5 price if different)	Cumulative Repuublican EV
Solid R plus 1 NE EV	N/A	153
GA  (16); IN (11)	24	180
AZ (11)	33	191
NC (15)	39 (40)	206
FL (29)	56	235
OH*  (18)	58 (55)	253
NH (4)	59 (60)	257
IA* (6)	59 (57)	263
PA (20	63	283
NV* (6)	65 (70)	289
VA* (13)	67 (68)	302
WI (10)	68	312
CO (9)	69 (66)	321
MI (16)	69 (71)	337

Effectively, 25% of the cumulative market weight would have Trump at 180  Electoral Votes, that rises to 206 Electoral votes at 40%.  Then there is a fairly large gap, which passes the median (50%) mark, until it hits a group of states with between 50% and 60% likelihood of Democratic win.  Even winning all four of those, which has the support of 100-60=40% of the market weight, would not get Trump to 270 electoral votes; he needs PA to get over the hump (or, interestingly, NV without PA to get to 269, which, with the sizable Republican majority of House delegations, would almost certainly be enough to guarantee his victory). I differ with the markets somewhat; I think VA and NV less likely to go Democratic than the majority of Predictit.org bidders, while I am more optimistic with regard to FL (at least unless Trump goes with Marco Rubio or Rick Scott as his VP nominee).

Two other states currently have Predictit.org markets, NY and CA.  Each was at 86% on 6/4 (CA moved to 88% today) , which I find ridiculously low (I have invested a little in the obvious outcome in each), but if they went Republican, their combined  84 Electoral votes, with the other states above, would take Trump to a monstrous 421 votes and would surely signify the end of Western civilization as we know it.

I need to revisit the  unconventional call on NM in my previous electoral map as being only “Leans Democratic”, instead of being much more solid.  My earlier calculation was based on the Republicans' effectively mobilizing their downstate base  (Very West Texas, very right wing, and very anti-immigrant) and a lack of enthusiasm for Hillary in the highly liberal North.  Trump’s feud with Susana Martinez, which may be papered over but cannot be ignored, and his failure so far to get Ted Cruz to come out for him, together have put an end to my speculation along those lines.   I have to resist being stubborn about changing my expectations when facts are substantially changed.

Third-Party News

The ploy last week by Bill Kristol, the neo-con editor of the conservative National Review magazine, who announced that he had identified a "credible conservative" candidate willing to run against Trump and Clinton, someone with "a real chance" of winning, turned out to be largely a head fake. The name he had in mind was David French, a respected writer on the Review's staff, but someone with a name recognition rating approximately equal to the quantity of his "real chance", about 0.01%. Of course, with no party, no ballot access, it's probably lower than that, and French has only expressed his willingness, not a formal candidacy, with the clock ticking on getting signatures to be on state ballots.

So, for the time being, we are left--beyond the two major parties--with the finalized Gary Johson-William Weld ticket for the Libertarians, and Jill Stein for the Green Party.  The widespread antipathy for both Clinton and Trump does offer some hope to these outsiders, particularly the Libertarians. Some polling indicates their support is near 10%, not enough to get them on the debate platform, which might enable them, with a strong performance, to become a credible mainstream alternative to do some real damage, but, if that kind of number held up, could mean the difference in several closely-contested states.  History suggests, however, that third-party support fades a bit in the final days of the general election campaign, when voters have to get real about which of the two major-party candidates they can live with. 

The Libertarian ticket is designed to attract moderate Republicans:  both Johnson and Weld are what would be considered social liberals.  Neither is particularly pure as a small-government libertarian, I would say.  They also have a bit of an issue in that their policy platform doesn't differ enough from Trump's positions (to the extent coherent positions can be derived from his statements).  In this regard, they could draw more or less equally from independents who have more personal aversion to both Trump and Clinton; I don't know that they will be successful drawing Cruz-type Republicans dissatisfied with Trump.  Then there is Stein, who might capture a percent or two among Sanders leftists who can't reconcile themselves with Clinton but see no value in Johnson/Weld; no meaning here except opportunity lost for the Democrats.  If predictit.org creates a market for Johnson's popular vote in the general election--something they have not done but I would expect--I would bump up my previous expectation of 2-4% to the 4-6% range, if available. 

In predictit.org terms, someone who really thinks that a third-party  might win a particular state (and is later proven right) could win twice, a return of close to 100%, by buying No on both the Democratic and Republican markets.  I would, however, remind the reader that neither John Anderson nor Ross Perot ever won any states.  

Still more Predictit.org News

There is a market on the winning party of the Presidential election; this one includes "Other" as an option (currently at 4%; I still hold a couple of shares at 3% from when Bloomberg was thinking of running, which I thought would boost that price, which I could then sell at a profit); the 64-37% current Democratic/Republican markets are oversubscribed on the positive side, which I would expect to correct. This market is still open to new participants, whereas the market for the name of the person elected in 2016 (an old one, started last year, which has names like Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, and all the failed Republican candidates) has the maximum allowed number of participants at 5000 and thus is closed to new participants for the time being. That one has Clinton 59%; Trump at 37% (those figures correspond well to the state-by-state markets tabled above) , Sanders at an unrealistic 7%, Johnson at 4%, and Biden at 6%--which I would describe as somewhat half-wishful thinking by those Clinton-haters expecting Hillary to be indicted and drop out, similar to the thinking I had with my semi-snark bids for Bloomberg previously. I never really thought he could win, but I did think the market could move up. In this game, there are the permanent bids, where you plan to hold until the end when the market is "resolved", and the market timing "investment" moves, when you like the price and buy in until such time as you don't like the risk/reward anymore.

More Sports Urgency: Muhammad Ali

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urgent Sports Post

Test of Champions
I must get something in before the kickoff of the biggest football game of the year:  the Champions League final game, between Atletico Madrid and Real Madrid, from Milan (Fox, 2:30 p.m. Eastern).

Spain's La Liga clearly has the best club competition in the world, with its teams dominating the European club championships for the last 2-3 years.  Beyond that, of course, Spain has won the last two European Championships and the World Cup before the last.

Real Madrid is an all-star team of some of the highest-paid players, and their fans and owners expect the best results, so this game is a must-win for the current squad and its management, as they have no other trophies this year (Barcelona won the league title and the domestic elimination cup championship).  Atletico has been right there in all of the competition, but the expectations of their long-suffering fans, who are at least as passionate as Real's, are more realistic.  In that sense, Atletico has already accomplished a great feat, eliminating the two teams I would have expected to meet in this Champions Cup final, Barcelona and Bayern Munich.  To provide an analogy to American sports, Real is the Yankees, Atletico the Mets.

This year's league contest went down to the final game before Barcelona won narrowly over Atletico and Real.  Barcelona had an unusual run of bad play for a few weeks this spring, which caused their lead in La Liga to shrink to the verge, and Atletico caught them during this period to eliminate them from the Champions League tournament.  Atletico then topped it of with a narrow victory over Bayern--which has the core of the world champion German team, plus others.

The match has galvanized Spain in a way that their long-lasting, unresolved political stalemate cannot.  In a possible foreshadowing of a problem the US could face in a few years, the two parties which controlled national politics since the end of the postwar Franco dictatorship have rotted away from the inside and are being steadily replaced by new ones:  Ciudadanos ("Citizens") has posed a good-government, free-market alternative to the corrupt, patronage-based "Christian" Popular Party which inherited the remnants of Franco's Falange party, and Podemos ("We Can") has been eating away the support of the Socialist party, which once posed a lively democratic alternative but has failed to be a successful governing party.  Podemos stands for rejection of austerity and has mobilized the disaffected, particularly the youth.

The resulting four-party division of support, complicated by the possibility of secessionist referendum for Catalonia, seems to be impossible to resolve with normal parliamentary methods, because none of the four parties trusts any of the others enough to govern with them (and particularly their party leaders do not).  Last December's general election created the mess, and June's new election seems unlikely to make any change to the situation.   Some kind of non-partisan technocratic solution seems the only likely outcome. to create a government of some kind.  In the meantime, it's good that the Battle of Madrid will be resolved in a neutral location--I'm thinking Milano will be relatively unscathed, but the home city may have some dangerous moments.

I hesitate to predict the outcome of the final--a single game is very unpredictable on its dynamics.  One likely result will be that one of the teams will show itself up to the occasion and the other will show nerves early, which could be disastrous (think of the Spain-Brazil World Cup final, which got out of hand early); another would be scoreless stalemate with both teams trying to avoid losing.  I'm hoping for a third, more exciting result:  a freewheeling, open contest that remains close but is decided in regulation time.  OK, I'll go with that, Real Madrid, 3-2.

Not to Exaggerate, But..
The Preakness Stakes last week was probably the best horse race I've ever seen in that classic, which , when there are any proven great horses competing, is usually the predictable intermission between the wild-and-woolly Kentucky Derby and the often-dramatic  test presented by the longer race in the Belmont Stakes. This year there are two great horses, as shown by the Derby result.  If I were advising Exaggerator's team, whose horse closed strongly late but came up short against the undefeated Nyquist in the Derby, I would've said to wait out the Preakness, rest your horse, and beat him in the endless homestretch of the Belmont.  They knew better:  the Desormeaux brothers, trainer and jockey for Exaggerator, who earned their stripes at the Preakness' Pimlico race track, went for it there and got a great break from the weather:  Nyquist had never raced in a sloppy track like Pimlico had last week, while Exaggerator's best win had been in an off track.

Exaggerator had a perfect ride, saving ground on the rail the whole way, and made a brilliant move coming around the final turn.  My congratulations to the Desormeaux family and the owners of their horse, who will now be favored in the Belmont, due to a fever that Nyquist came down with after the race.

Baseball
Not too many surprises so far, as major-league baseball reaches the one-third mark of the season this week.  The biggest positive surprise is Boston's Red Sox, who have surpassed division rival Toronto as having the most potent offense in the majors; the biggest negative surprise is my pick for 2016 World Series champs, the Houston Astros, for which everything (hitting, pitching, fielding) seems to be coming up snake eyes.  It is not too late for them, though, as their division has a fair degree of parity (all three American League divisions are still competitive, first-to-last).

The National League is different, with very clear winners and losers.  The biggest positive surprise are the expected losers from Philadelphia.  The Phillies' rebuilding program is proceeding faster than expected and they are at least mediocre.  The Cubs' rebuild is complete and they are close to total domination of the league, though they will have to prove it against tough postseason pitching.  The Dodgers are disappointing, while the Giants--winners of the World Series in the last three even-numbered years--seem to be rising to the top once again.

Basketball
Finally, to the NBA, where a huge game will be played today:  the big two of the Oklahoma City Thunder, Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, will have their big chance for postseason success take a final exam today.  They have a 3-2 advantage against the defending champions, the Golden State Warriors, who threatened, through their record-setting regular season, to change the nature of the game itself (small ball, 3-pointers), and the home game tonight in OKC could be viewed as the climax of the whole season.  Like Atletico Madrid, the Thunder has been earning their shot by toppling the favorites--first their dramatic victory over the Spurs, now, maybe, the Warriors.  If they do succeed, they will face Lebron James and the Cavaliers in a championship final that will be, like today's Champions League, difficult or impossible to predict because of the unlikely buildup.

OK, OKC over GSW (narrowly, tonight), and Cleveland over OKC, 4-2.

Intermission: Looking Back, Looking Ahead

This is the mea culpa moment for many a pundit, when they have to confess that they refused to believe the serious threat Trump presented to win the Republican nomination.  My own confession was that I did not take it seriously in July, 2015, when I stated in so many words that Trump "will not be...their ultimate candidate", though even then I noted his successes in attracting support. In my preview of the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, I did recognize that Trump's support was likely to materialize at the polls. After New Hampshire, there was no denying the threat (at least, I could not, much as I may have wanted to do so).  I always hoped that the adults in the party would get together and do something to foreclose on his prospects, and I was surprised that they did not.  (The miserably ineffective efforts of #NeverTrump and the stillborn Cruz-Kasich alliance of the past couple of weeks don't count as "doing something").   Yes, I was expecting Jeb Bush to win it; when he couldn't, I thought Rubio would, but I didn't doubt Trump's level of celebrity and showmanship could translate into electoral momentum.

So, this thing that I have been dreading for 18 months has come to pass.  It's not that I really believe those Trumpistas who have been convinced by the braggart that he can win in a landslide, that Hillary is a weak candidate, etc.  Neither do I think he is the weakest candidate they could have chosen, though, and I take little comfort from the squabbling of the Republican "leaders" and their reluctance to support him (or to appear on the stage with him, let alone on the national ticket with him)--they will be rounded up or suppressed by the time of the convention.  I expect none of them will be running as a third-party candidate for the "true Republicans" (or a "New Bull Moose Party", which would be an interesting and historically reverent move);  most of the party faithful will show up and vote as directed, even if unenthusiastically.

If I were looking for a candidate that would be easier to defeat in a general election, it would have been Ted Cruz, who would have won the hardcore party conservative vote but little more.  (If Trump loses big this year, the Democrats may still get to run against Cruz in 2020, as the far right Tea Party would still be seeking their True Conservative who could win--that should be promising.)  I have been fairly open in my personal preference for John Kasich, though he would have been the hardest one to defeat, and expressing my astonishment that the Republicans would not see this and move toward him.  My reason for this seeming illogic?  One cannot assume that any national party nominee, no matter how scurrilous, slow, or unqualified, could not win election:  we have examples such as Nixon, Reagan, Dubya to squash such thinking.  Kasich, for all his faults, was at least genuinely qualified, and not crazy, like Cruz or Trump are.

Doing Preliminary Electoral Vote (EV) Maps
In my last post, I addressed some of the major strategic questions that the Hillary Clinton campaign will face:  keeping the coalition together, picking a running mate, communicating on the issues.  I could have added a couple more obvious points, like using the threat of Trump to raise vast sums of money, enough that those big donors and PAC's should become almost unnecessary (which will help her cause, in the end, though I recognize a lot of that money will be paid forward and down on the ticket), or getting their hands on the names, software, and technicians who ran President Obama's hugely successful 2008 and 2012 web campaigns.

Moving to tactics, though, we must emphasize that this is decided in the end by the Electoral College, and ignoring its stubborn realities could be harmful to a candidate--of either party--whose campaign is focused solely on the popular vote.   The dreaded scenario is big wins in certain segments of the electorate, or regions of the country, combined with losses in some closely-contested states with large populations.  It caught up with Al Gore in 2000, and it could catch out Donald Trump in 2016, if he were wildly successful in his campaign, winning with large margins in some regions (the South, the Great Plains, the Inland West) but losing narrowly in states like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Before we can address likely Electoral College outcomes, though, we must stipulate a couple of conditions for the basic scenario.  The first is that there will be no major third-party candidates, that the candidates on the ballot in most states will be Hillary, Drumpf, the Libertarian Party nominee (most likely it will be former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson), Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and apparently there will be a Constitution Party nominee named Darrell Castle. There is a movement among dissident anti-Trump Republicans to nominate someone, partially out of spite and partially in the hope to keep mainstream Republican turnout up, but at this point I see no takers, in terms of people willing to put their name out there, where it would be vilified by Trump backers until the end of their conscious lifetimes.  Some may also seek a challenger to Hillary on the left for the general election, or some sort of non-partisan moderate in the middle, but I think the outcomes in the two parties' primaries will eliminate those opportunities.  Still, I would expect this election, in this scenario, to produce a record vote  (2-4%) for the Libertarian party:  many Cruz-type conservatives might opt for that rather than a nose-holding Trump vote, and those will not be wasted votes:  a couple of percent withheld from Republican voters could mean the difference in a couple of states. The absence of a major third-party candidate would be another area where my guess was wrong:  I thought Hillary-Bush would be sure to produce a dissident candidacy, based on the "neither candidate is acceptable to a large number of voters" theory; though it's not Bush, the same applies to the Wherever Man (and I had Trump as #5 on my list of 10 likely possible 3rd-party candidates), but circumstances seem to be working against this complicating scenario.

The second condition would be that both Clinton and Trump each run at least a fairly competent campaign.  I have little cause to doubt Hillary, though there could be (in theory) some sort of "bimbo eruption" relating to her husband, a badly-handled outcome on the "damn email" case, or a brutally mishandled convention, relating to the supporters of primary opponent Bernie Sanders, which would turn off millions of should-be Democratic voters.  On the Republican side, it's hard to say exactly what would be a fatal mistake by Donald Trump, as he has made so many with so little cost to his support base--perhaps something in the Panama Papers about money he has hidden away, or a tape recording of how he really "hates those rubes" that support him.  A "47%" moment, or statements that indicate he is at heart bigoted against African-Americans, could really hurt him, as his supporters (mistakenly) are relying on the notion that he has their interests at heart, and some African-Americans might otherwise buy into his argument to shake up the status quo, which (even with Obama as President) has not been serving them well.

Anyway, one can build up the electoral map from scratch, or work from the map produced by the Obama victories of 2008-12; they will get to the same place: those states reliably Democratic in recent elections, those reliably Republican, the ones with an inconsistent pattern, and then the adjustment of the patterns for the peculiarities of this election.  In this case, the three most likely variations from recent norms are:  1)  a reduction in the turnout of black voters from their historic high points in favor of Obama; 2) an intensification of the support for the Democratic candidate among Hispanic voters and single women; and 3) an increase in the turnout and the support for Republicans among a group of voters I would describe as "middle-aged, white married people with status anxiety"--they would be the ones who will be most inspired by Trump's candidacy.

This last group is the true wild card of the election; their size is unknown but should not be underestimated.  Contrary to what some have found, I do not think they are that similar to Sanders supporters--one should note that the patterns of who won primaries in the two parties has been similar, but for the most part, it has been the Trump and Clinton victories that have been in common (or Sanders and Cruz).   Sanders and Trump both have populist appeals, but of different natures.

I do not think the net results of these three effects will turn too many states from their recent patterns. Here are a few comments, by region:
North East:  Most states will remain solidly in the Clinton camp.  Despite the indications from the NH primary (Trump won, Clinton lost), I see Clinton winning there, but I see ME as being a state where the Democratic support may be soft.
Middle Atlantic:  Trump bluster about NY is just that;  PA, NJ will have many passionate Trump supporters, but they should be outnumbered.  VA and NC are states where I see Trump strongly outperforming Romney's level.
South:  I don't believe winning GA will end up being a reasonable objective for the Democrats. Florida, as always, will be contested, but the result should reflect the national popular vote.   The rest of the states will be Republican, as usual, though Arkansas might be a bit closer than in recent elections.
Mideast/Midwest:  IN should go Republican; MI and WI Democratic; Ohio should be a tossup until Election Day, unless it is turning into a Democratic landslide.  MN should be safe Democratic; MO safe Republican (we should probably follow the SEC and include it in the South!)  West of Minnesota and Iowa (which I see as a pure tossup), and East of the Rockies, I don't see any Democratic states, with the possible exception of the one Congressional District in Nebraska that Obama won in 2008 (the attempt by Republican state legislators to close out that loophole failed this year).
Rocky Mountain states:  This may be one of the more interesting battlegrounds of the election.  UT hates Trump will but will still fall in line, but not by the usual overwhelming margin; CO should be safe for the Democrats.  I don't feel real comfortable about NM, though I should:  It has the highest Hispanic population %, the southern (Republican) part of the state should be more pro-Cruz than pro-Trump, and Gary Johnson could siphon off 5% or more would-be Republican votes.  On the other hand, I am strangely optimistic about the Democratic chances in AZ, where John McCain's strong opposition to Trump (in the midst of a somewhat desperate re-election campaign of his own) creates uncertainty, and in MT, where the Democrats have shown some strength.  Finally, NV should not be taken for granted; Harry Reid is determined to have a Democrat succeed him in his Senate seat, but the "middle-class anxiety" vote may work strongly in Trump's favor, and we should not forget Trump's big win in that state's early primary.
Far West: I feel that AK (Alaska) will be closer than usual; otherwise, the Pacific Coast should be solidly Democratic.

Here's my chart:

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

That chart shows 212-151 Democrats in terms of safe EV; 289-205 counting "Likely" and "Lean", with 44 as toss-ups (307-231 if forced to decide today).  I would say that 289 likely Electoral votes indicates some reason for optimism but is hardly a safe bet.

You can do your own map at http://www.270towin.com/.  You could look at veteran Charlie Cook's early map at http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard  (he has Clinton at 190-142 safe, 304-190 with leaners, with the same number--44--as tossups, though they are composed differently).

Betting on the Come
My (modest-sized) Predictit.org account has grown by 1/3 since last year.  I have played it fairly cautiously, with lots of small bets, looking for the odds or the outcomes to move my way, and have won much more often than not.  I did lose quite frequently on individual primary outcomes, but always with fairly small bets.  My larger gains have come from Clinton on the nomination (and on odds of winning the Presidency), betting against the GOP going to a second ballot, and betting against all of the Republican declared candidates at various times (the ones against Trump being losing bets).

Currently, I have some longshot money hopes on Evan Bayh being selected as the Democratic VP nominee (with smaller stakes on Deval Patrick, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, and Al Franken); on the Republican side, I have a mix of positions:  against those who I think may have hurt Trump's feelings, in favor of those who flatter him with their support (plus Condi Rice, Marco Rubio, who failed to hurt him, and John Kasich).   Internationally, I am betting against Brexit, against Dilma in Brazil, and Rajoy in Spain (that one is still dragging on), against Boris Johnson as Prime Minister in the U.K., and in favor of the UN naming a woman as Secretary-General.

The new developments (just this week) are the individual state markets for some of the swing states in the general election:  PA, FL, CO, VA, and OH.  My initial positions are in favor of the Democrats in all five (in order to take a position and monitor movement), though my comments above would reveal I am not confident about the ultimate outcome in the last two of these. My bets are consistently against the Republicans/in favor of the Democrats in almost all of the contested Senate seat markets they have (PA, OH, WI, IL, NV, MD, NH, IN, though this last is at somewhat longshot odds), the exceptions being NC and AZ.   You should note that the odds vary on these, as do my own levels of confidence in those outcomes, and my sizes of bet. Finally, my bet on the range of number of House seats the Republicans will hold after the election is for 218-230 (and against all the other ranges); in other words, a very narrow Republican majority.

TMI, probably--sorry!

It's All Over--Let the Shouting Begin!

The decisive results of the five Mid-Atlantic primaries April 26 erased any  remaining doubt on the major parties' nominees. As such, they signal the end of Act II of the 2016 Presidential Drama--the remaining primaries should be conducted essentially offstage, and Act III will commence with the conventions in July.

I was anticipating that California's Republican primary on June 7 could be the finale for Act II, but the failures of the effort within the Republican party to stop Trump indicate it will be anticlimactic. The #NeverTrump movement is ending badly; the Kasich-Cruz cooperation, too little and too late, is poorly planned--New Mexico should have been a Cruz state, and Indiana a Kasich one--and poorly executed.  If it had started immediately after the Florida primary and Marco Rubio's withdrawal  (a mere 45 days ago), it could have succeeded, particularly with the skill that Cruz backers have shown to pick off possible Trump delegates in state conventions, but splitting votes in the states since then has helped ensure Trump wins in most states in the meantime.

It is clear that many in the Republican party who were appalled by the grotesque campaign of Donald Trump are finding their way to reconciling themselves with supporting him, or at least ending their opposition to his nomination.  It was ever thus in the party:  the magnetism of power will get  the filings in line.  Some will think themselves able to avoid contamination by dodging him, but it will only make them less likely to get the full support from the Republican base they will need to compete.

On the Democratic side, the eventual nominee has been obvious for months--perhaps  Hillary Clinton's nomination was never seriously threatened, at least since Joe Biden announced he would not run--but Bernie Sanders did a great job of keeping the primary campaigns  interesting and content-filled (unlike the Republican race, which has been shallow, echo-chamber vapidity combined with lowest-common-denominator personal insults and vulgarity throughout).  Alas, for those touched by the Bern, the dream is over.  Sanders' campaign has recognized the inevitable; he will keep his run going through the final primaries in early June, then work to get some favorable planks in the Democratic party platform and a say in the choice of the Vice-Presidential nominee of the party.

Clinton will be willing to concede some ground to Sanders on the former--he is essentially pushing on an open door--but I don't think she will give much ground on the latter.  The work to vet Democratic VP nominees for Clinton has begun.  I think the campaign will focus on the strategic choice among five alternatives:

1)  A Hispanic to lock in that vote  (Labor Secretary Tom Perez, HUD Secretary Julian Castro), particularly if Trump chooses a Hispanic VP;

2) A woman who can lock in that vote  (Amy Klobuchar), particularly if Trump chooses a woman VP nominee;

 3) Someone from the Sanders-Elizabeth Warren wing of the party, to help make peace with disgruntled Sanders supporters (besides Sanders or Warren, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson, environmentalist Bill McKibben);  

4)  A white male loyalist with moderate tendencies (Sens. Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, or Evan Bayh); or 

5) An established Democratic liberal who is not a Senator in a state with a Republican governor (Deval Patrick or Al Franken). 

As you might guess, I think the first three are relatively weak ideas (though I do like my selections of Anderson and McKibben from among the many minor political figures who have endorsed Sanders), but they cannot fully be discarded until the Democratic convention begins.  The choice between 4) and 5)  will depend on the level of confidence the Clinton campaign will have in their ability to get a decent share of white male voters who identify as independents--if weak, that would argue for 4), if strong, 5) might help generate additional enthusiasm in the base to run up the score.  I particularly like the choices of Patrick, who would solidify the feeling of smooth succession  from the Obama Administration (Patrick is a favorite there), and will feel like an unforced post-racialist choice of a respected African-American, or of Franken, who could make for an entertaining and effective "attack dog" nominee to go after Trump.  

Sherrod Brown, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren herself are names who will merit mention but not selection, as they are Senators in states with Republican governors:  the governor would be able to name some Republican who would have the inside track at holding onto the seat.  In addition, their election as VP would also immediately create an absence in the Senate caucus, which will need a majority in order to organize the leadership committee chairs, etc. around support that will be critical for Clinton to govern successfully in 2017,  As for Sanders, I think he is wise enough to understand that he would not be included in the decision-making in a Clinton White House and that he can be more effective in the Capitol.

Learning from an Ugly Past General Election Campaign
This promises to be an extremely ugly Presidential campaign; the only one that I can recall that remotely compares to this one in the level of crudeness we should expect was the 1972 Nixon-McGovern campaign. That disastrous result, which embarrassed us before the world in the way that Trump's primary campaign has done for us this year, featured Nixon's CREEP (Committee to Re-elect the President), bloated with dirty money, paranoia, and megalomania, and fresh off successfully stonewalling the initial investigation after its stupid Watergate break-in.  The Republicans successfully framed George McGovern--a decent, but unlikely, antiwar candidate who had emerged from a contentious primary season without a unified party--with a caricature of hiss program as
 the "3A's--Abortion, Amnesty, and Acid" en route to winning 49-states and 520 electoral votes.  That smashing victory was, in turn, smashed by the investigation of the Watergate cover-up and Nixon's resignation (and the imprisonment of much of Nixon's team) in less than two years.

McGovern's general election campaign was honorable, honest, earnest, and incompetent.  The worst mistake was the mishandling of the VP nomination (the "Eagleton affair", leading to his withdrawal and replacement by Sargent Shriver; more generally, McGovern won the nomination of a divided party, split on the Vietnam war issue, roiled by the candidacy (and assassination wounding) of George Wallace, and denied the candidacy of Ted Kennedy, the most popular potential candidate, and the one Nixon was worried about when his cronies greenlighted the Watergate break-in and other dirty tricks. His general election campaign relied on the proposition of ending the Vietnam war, which Nixon countered with his "secret plan to end the war".  Regardless of whether there was really such a plan (there was--the notion of negotiating a truce, then leaving after the famous "decent interval"), it was no great trick for Nixon to pretend he had one.

The circumstances are different now:  Trump will be the underdog, Clinton the leader of the incumbent administration's party, and the wars are less central of an issue (because Americans are not currently dying in them).  Nevertheless, there are lessons Democrats should take from that experience.

1.  No Holds Barred. -- The Drumpfentruppen will come at Hillary with everything they have. Trump's approach is to go hard early, try anything, see what sticks, and then rub it in at every opportunity.  While The Candidate Herself should remain "Presidential" and refrain from the low blows--something Donald can only wish he could pretend to be or do--Hillary will have a deep team of surrogates to counter his attacks with well-crafted truth, and they should be ruthless with counterattacks.

Trump has several weak spots which were exposed in the primaries:  the first is his thin skin, and his shocking lack of self-esteem (given his overweening pride and ego).  The second is the false nature of his appeal; blue-collar workers have nothing to gain from his tax plan, his protectionist trade policy.  An additional one that I recommend is to impugn his ethics and his integrity (something the Republicans will do for Hillary); it is inconceivable--"blind trust" or no--that he can govern in a way that is neutral towards his many business interests, and I see no reason to grant that he would be altruistic or self-sacrificing in the slightest.

2. Unity of Objectives -- In 2016, there is a single imperative:  crushing electoral success, from the top of the ticket, in the key Senate contests, and to maximize the gains in the House.  All else--the Supreme Court seat, control of the Senate, any hope for a legislative program--will depend on that success. The loathing toward so-called DINO's, the splittist tendencies of the Old New Left, these must be put on hold, for the greater objective of putting down Trump and the other Republi-Cons. Plenty of time to work out those problems later.

3.  The Issues Matter -  and it's not just one issue, or just three.  The good news is, our candidate has a better handle on all of them.  She is well-informed, has a progressive view on most or all, and she will have the benefit of advice from among the best in the business, not least of which will be her husband, Former President Clinton (the name I think he will take in the White House), the ultimate policy wonk, with outstanding political intuitions and who still manages a sky-high approval rating. She should welcome televised debates, which will showcase her superior grasp of the issues, as long as she can prepare for the traps he will try to spring.

To return to the party platform, the Clinton folks should accommodate Sanders' on issues like the minimum wage, the ultimate objective of universal health care, climate change, infrastructure investment, and most especially, on military spending and military adventurism.  Assuming Trump will be the nominee, Hillary cannot afford to be branded the "pro-war" candidate; that is the one area which could cause her to lose support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.

Three Things Donald Trump Has Right
Like the proverbial broken clock, and unlike his rival Ted Cruz, who is consistently wrong about every single thing, Donald Trump occasionally gets something right, and I think that deserves to be recognized.

First, Trump has been correct on the negative effects of the status of campaign financing, and that the Clinton campaign has a problem here.  Though Hillary has taken a responsible position in favor of overturning the Citizens United decision, or if necessary, passing a constitutional amendment to do that, he has a superior position in being able to say that he has no Political Action Committee as an unregulated ally with secret funds supporting him, and Hillary should find a way to cut that off--she will have plenty of conventional campaign funding support for the general election, for herself and for party allies.  It's true that Trump comes from a privileged position, due to his wealth, which reduces his dependency on fund-raising, but the facts remain.

On social issues--apart from those of minorities and women's rights--he has been relatively brave in his positions that run out of line with conventional Republican thinking.  Though he has insisted he is firmly anti-abortion, he has not supported defunding Planned Parenthood or overturning Roe vs. Wade, and he has avoided gratuitous insults to the LGBT community on issues like same-sex marriage and the newest, the absurd transgender bathroom issue.  He has also avoided parading his religious beliefs and imposing them on everyone.

When it comes to our foreign military entanglements in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Iraq, he has again staked out a position at odds with conventional Republican neo-con thinking.  This does not mean his position is coherent, or that his claim to have always been against the Iraq war is factual.  In place of the certainty he would get us ensnared, we at least have reason to be uncertain what his Presidency would bring in this area.  As in so many others.