Electoral Strategy for 2018

Trump is a sadist; he causes pain in everything that he does.  Many have tried to give him back what he deserves, but it seems the only pain he can feel comes from the feeling that he is losing.

We have a chance to punch him the mouth this year; to make him feel that pain for a change. But it has to be a loss that is clear-cut, unambiguous.

Not only that, if that were to happen, then the Republican party regulars would turn on him and he'd be on the way out, one way or the other. Whether they would be able to rescue their party is a separate question, less important for now.

End of Trumpism--the Headline

(as I would rank order on likelihood) 

1. Trump Defeated!  ( in the 2020 Election)
2. Trump Quits! (Before 2020)
3. Trump Dies!  (anytime OK)
4. Trump Announces He Will Not Run Again (most likely in early 2020, when the recession hits)
5. Trump Wins Re-Election, Civilization Crashes, Drumpfsterfire Blazes until Snuffed in Resulting Chaos... (I'd guess late 2022)
6. Trump Is Impeached and Convicted! (could even be in second term)
7. That 25th Amendment Coup-because-Trump-is-Crazy Thing! (Since it didn't already happen...)

I have full respect for the job that Robert Mueller is doing, but I don't expect the investigation to lead to a decisive outcome.   I like that it's an irritant to Trump, and the distractions it provides keep the White House from being more effective. That's entirely a positive factor, though far outweighed in magnitude by the damage the servile legislators and sycophantic staffmen (the only kinds left in the Republican Congress and adninistration) enable Trump's mad policy flailing to "win".

Beating the Drumpfists
 (and I do mean giving them a beating)

Developing a winning US electoral strategy, as usual, begins with Florida and Ohio, just like in the Presidential elections.  In this case, it is only partly and indirectly because of their status as the key swing states in the Electoral College.  In 2018, there are critical state elections that will make a difference for all branches and levels of government.  Both states will have contested elections for governor and for senator, as well as a number of critical House races and battles for control of their legislatures. 

Then, the control of those statehouses will be important in the brief leading period before the 2020 campaign begins, as they have the ability to affect voting procedures, which have been fiercely contested in both for obvious reasons--so much is at stake.  Frankly, too much.

For me, the single most important election for 2018 will be that for the re-election of Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio.  It will be a pure test of political drawing power for both parties, and they are throwing everything into it.  (Trump was there last weekend on "official White House business"--to get the taxpayer to pay for it--and he will no doubt find other reasons between now and November.)

Brown is a solid candidate, a good campaigner and positioned somewhere in the spectra of populism and progressivism between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.  In other words a strong, representative Democrat.  He will be facing a handpicked Republican Congressman whom Trump endorsed over the weekend (though I imagine the Drumpfster doesn't know him or what he stands for.) No matter,  Jim Renacci will be bound to appear to be a pro-Trump, anti-Kasich kind of stooge. 

The party nominees for the governor's race will be determined in the primary Tuesday but are likely to be Mike Dewine, a nasty Scroogian sort with proven electoral ability, and Rich Cordray, a Democratic former Lieutenant Governor, but better known nationally as former Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the "CFPB").  He was, in fact, the only Director of that agency until Drumpfist henchman Mick Mulvaney took it over recently, in one of these painful, chaotic bureaucratic power struggles that the Drumpfists so enjoy, and immediately set himself seriously about destroying it.  Anyway, Cordray will get the blame in ad after ad for over-regulation, and he is bland, and I am not optimistic about that one.

Sherrod Brown is rated as having a Hillary-like 80% chance (on Predictit), but I am scared:  his not winning would blow the whole deal. Whatever else happens, if he loses, the punch in the mouth be softened.  We all know too well about the diverse Ohio electorate:  if Brown's organization can deliver turnout in the big cities and their suburbs, and also rally the disaffected blue-collar voters who were critical in Trump's win in the state, he will have shown the way to the national party for 2020.  More on this later.

Florida is not quite as exciting but also a top priority  In the Senate, there is real danger because Senator Bill Nelson, a bland, blameless liberal, is running for re-election (fourth term) against the odious, term-limited state governor Rick Scott.  Scott is an opportunist, a crook, and an elitist but, like Trump, has been able to con enough voters to have won signal victories--twice!-in Florida.  This case is about as pure a straight-up test as there could be of Trumpist vs. Democrat.  As the incumbent, Nelson is a slight favorite, but this could be a mirage.  In the governor's race, I would favor the chances of Democratic ex-Congresswoman Gwen Graham, the daughter of Florida Governor (and Senator) Bob Graham. As we know, picking up that office can be a matter of national importance, as we saw in 2000 with Jeb Bush.

The Next Tier
Florida and Ohio went wrong in 2016, but the real killers in the Presidential contest were Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, each of which moved the needle just a bit to the right and drove us all off the cliff.  They are also finely-balanced politically, and recovering the electoral majority in these states is a worthy battle. It is a battle that both parties will be poised to fight with excessive effort and money invested.

As states which had leaned Democratic in national elections before 2016, all three have Democratic senators running for re-election.  It is an important fact for the 2018's that all three--Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania--are now considered likely winners (80% or so).

Loss by any of them would be a major Democratic disaster, so if the race is tight near Election Day, the appeals for TV ad money will be hysterical (meaning not funny, but screechingly constant).  Do not be tempted--when they say "your contribution will be triple-matched" it means the national party has already given enough to cover three times what Viewers Like You are expected to contribute.  My view is, they should have built their get-out-the-vote with early money and local candidates' organization.  If they did that, they will be OK; if they didn't, too bad for all of us.  Pennsylvania's local contests will be particularly important because of the court ruling overturning the Republican-gerrymandered House districting of the state, giving the Democrats several pickup opportunities.

There is one more member of this group of medium-sized northern battleground states;  Minnesota did not go for Trump, but it has been very close in all recent Presidential elections..  This year,  Minnesota Democrats are actually defending two Democratic senate seats, an unusual occurrence caused by the resignation of Al Franken (let's not go there, now).  Amy Klobuchar is running for re-election and should be favored, but the Republicans will aim at replacement Senator appointee Tina Smith, who is running to keep it now for a full term.  There is also a rare opening from the end of term of a Democratic governor, which will be a lively and expensive contest.

Additional Senate Battlegrounds
When you start with a 51-49 Republican Senate edge (Democrats need to gain two for control) and the Democrats defending ten seats which Trump won in 2016, every closely-contested one is vital, and these states--mostly smaller, with less expensive TV markets--will be subjected to a deluge of ads.  If I were managing a moderate Democrat defending against some wingnut Republican--likely to be the case in five different states which went heavily for Trump (IN, MO, ND, MT, and WV) --I would look to de-escalate.  Defend against the absurd attacks ("no, I'm not a Communist"), but try to tone down the rhetoric and spending level.  These Democratic candidates have to follow a fine line--yes, I'm a gun owner, no, I'm not opposed to working with Republicans--but the way was shown to them by the Conor Lamb special election campaign in Pennsylvania.

The story is different in those four states (AZ, NV, TN, TX) where Republicans are defending Senate seats and facing serious threats.  The problem for the Republicans is that the simple Trumpist story line does not appear to be enough to win these normally Republican states, due in large part to the success the Democrats have had in fielding credible candidates.

Ted Cruz in Texas is something more (or less) than a mere Trump acolyte, and his desperate race to hold off a historic shift in the balance of power between the parties is another big story for the election.  I have been fooled before by popular Texas Democratic candidates who max out in the mid-40's, and Beto O'Rourke appears to be another. I won't believe it's possible he wins until I see a poll that shows Cruz five points behind.  But, if that happens, that would be the Democratic equivalent of the Republicans' winning Sherrod Brown's seat, a major party win regardless of the final Congressional seat count.

Senate Seats Most Likely to Flip 

(State, Party, and likely candidate of incumbent party, current Predictit odds)

Arizona, R, Martha McSally,* 72%   (Jeff Flake's seat)

Nevada, R, Dean Heller, 70%
Missouri, D, Claire McCaskill, 53%  

North Dakota, D, Heidi Heitkamp 52%

Tennessee, R, Marsha Blackburn,* 52%

Indiana, D, Joe Donnelly, 47%

Florida, D, Bill Nelson, 39%
Montana, D, Jon Tester, 38%
West Virginia, D, Joe Manchin, 32%

Texas, R, Ted Cruz, 30%

Wisconsin, D, Tammy Baldwin, 22%
Minnesota, D, Tina Smith, 22%

Ohio, D, Sherrod Brown, 19%
Pennsylvania, D, Bob Casey, 15%. 

*Nominee not currently seated. 

I hope you get the gist of it:  two very good opportunities for Democratic gains pickups at the top of the list, and a lot of uncertainty, in primarily Democratic-held seats, after that.  It would be a true wave result--a left hook in the jaw--if the Democrats could hold that two-seat gain.  Otherwise, a miss.   In my betting, I'm looking at the Democrats picking up 2-3 and the Republican 2-3 (my guesses would be ND and IN going over, maybe FL).  Predictit.org has the chances of Democrats gaining control at about 38%.

And the House...
Like the Senate, 2018's House campaign is a target-rich environment with battles scattered throughout the country. Republican members are fleeing the Paul Ryan-led partisan suckfest shipwreck, with the lead rat being Ryan himself.  An unprecedented number have decided to run for other office, have term limited themselves, or otherwise headed for the hills.  The majority of those did so from varying combinations of Drumpf-induced nausea mixed with fear of losing (a few due to exposed misbehavior).

I am looking for--but have not yet found--a table which shows the incumbents of both parties who are running for re-election. Since historically those people win about 90% of the time, in good times and bad, it would be the best way to build a table of the likely score for estimating outcomes based on the toss-up races--of which I expect there will be money.  This has been due partly to the power of incumbency, and partly to the choices of those who don't see victory happening.

Ballotpedia has a number of lists which show who is running for this and that, or for The Hills (my term), but not a list of those who are remaining and running again.  My rough count is Democrats have about 175 of those seats, Republicans about 195.  Between those 65 or so that are up for grabs, and a dozen or so really good Republican-held incumbent targets for defeat (few will go the other way), the Democrats need to make up about 20 seats.  It can be done, but the Democrats will need something like a 10-point national margin to have such a big win.  They are now at about 8%  in current polling (likely voters), but the pros from both sides are feeling that this will happen.  A recent Pew poll suggests likely voters prefer the Democrats on issues by about 57-41, so the question is how many of those will actually vote, and vote according to that (as opposed to the candidates themselves and their particular positions).

 Predictit has chances of Democratic control of the House at about 68%, which to me is too high by 10% or so--thus I am currently betting primarily on Republican control, hoping to take profits before Election Day.  They have a new market set up on the four combinations of control, the odds of which should reflect how the two contests are distinct but correlated.  Current values:  D-House R-Senate 42%; D-House D-Senate 30%; R-House R-Senate 30%; R-House D-Senate 4%. (Totals do not equal 100%).

Lastly, a couple of tips for harassed folks like me receiving dozens or hundreds of appeals for money:
1) Do not be moved by the ones saying "we are doing well" or "we are not doing so well", or "they are spending money against us".  Those were all scheduled appeals using whatever news of the moment inevitably points to the need to ask for money.
2) Do not be moved by the ones saying they have a deadline.  The deadline is theirs, not yours; as suggested before, it is more sound to ask for money for developing a ground game (until the last month) rather than those other reasons, and responding rationally to late appeals will rely upon a sophisticated analysis of current probability that is too much to expect of anyone.
3) Again, don't try too hard to give tactically in the close races.  It's too complicated to really keep up with it this year, and I am tired of contributing to candidates I don't really know who are about to lose close races.

I do endorse contributing to Democrats--exclusively so this year, unless there is some Republican who runs by explicitly repudiating Trump (and I have not seen that yet).  It is the right way to respond to the Republican tax bill which has largely eliminated the tax incentive for charitable contributions.  I'm shifting about 60% of my annual charitable give to politics this year.  Then we'll see; I keep hoping for de-escalation of political expense, which I consider to be a clear example of what is called The Cost of Bad Quality (a/k/a waste).

Pick a few races that matter to you, and--now that the national Democrats are about done putting their fingers on the scales of primary contests--give to the DCCC, to the DLCC (aids state legislature races), and Emily's List.  Yeah, I know they only endorse women--this year, I think that's pretty sound strategy for me.

K-Armistice Day; a Ripple in Time

I congratulate the South and North Korean Presidents for agreeing to meet each other, and then announcing the end of hostilities between them during that meeting. 

So,  how does the US relate to this?  We keep our distance and see how it plays out. Mostly the US has contributed by being less relevant:  Once the Koreans got the US out of the picture, a moderate South Korean and an ambitious young North Korean dictator found they could agree on next steps very quickly.  What will come next is far from certain, as it is unclear how far the South would go to accommodate the North (would they ask the US military to leave the peninsula?), or how much Un can be trusted to keep the peace, but it is at least a signal accomplishment to end the state of war that has existed between the two countries for three generations.  

Will Trump claim credit for it?  No surprise; he is already saying he did it all by himself.  Does he deserve credit for it?  Not that much, but, to give him some his due, he "stirred the pot", and this is what was able to be brewed up afterwards. 

Civilizing Waves

I suggest an analogy as a way to think about the history of the world.  Civilization is like a broad, deep, low-lying plain rising gradually out of the sea.  We can then think of various perturbations--movements of various kinds, like nations, tribes, religions, mass migrations, military forces of conquest--as waves rising out of the sea and washing over the land surface.  Most of them have a relatively short duration before they reach their "high-water mark", and then roll back into the sea, but they often leave something behind, their contributions to the collective human experience and knowledge.

Some of those waves are very tall, but not so deep (front to back); they hit hard and go far but recede quickly.  Examples would be the surge of Napoleon in Europe, or the Mongols in Asia.  Most of the dynasties of Chinese history would be more like tidal surges which rise, swamp everything, and slowly sink in.  Then there a few monster waves:  the rise of the major religions, the double-crested wave of the classical Greek and Roman expansions, and then there's This One. 

There was a massive Earthquake, which we sometimes call Modernity, other times the Enlightenment, and the red-hot magma fueling this tsunami is the power of reason to interpret facts, the philosophy known as empiricism.  The rumblings go back farther, to the Renaissance, which accompanied also the Age of Exploration for the Western European nations, which certainly made a big splash.  The big wave, though, has been the surge in science and technology, which has been breaking for some 200 years now.  The chaos of the Twentieth Century has been an outcropping upon which this flood has broken and been diverted in unexpected ways (Communism, Fascism, the Cold War), possibly less forceful now, but still leaving behind incredible quantity of detritus (like the Internet, smartphones, robots).

The Korean War has certainly been a central fact in Northeast Asia; equally so the long postwar tensions and the separate paths North and South  Korea have taken since then.  I would put it in the context of 'stuff' left behind by that major flow called the Cold War which resulted from the modernizing monster wave being powerfully broken by the rock of World War II.   It is high time for it to settle into the landscape. 

The First Armistice: A  Centennial 

2018 is the 100th anniversary year of the original Armistice Day--November 11--which ended World War I (in the US, Armistice Day has since been renamed as Veterans Day).  1918 marked the US' emergence as the undoubted pre-eminent power, due to the exhaustion of the European powers in the Great War (Germany, Russia, France, Britain) and the catastrophic, colonialized condition of the East and South Asian societies.  The fifty years that followed, 1918 - 1968, 50 and 100 years ago, were defining in terms of America's relation to world history  Cultural game-changers like mass electricity, radio, television, and film created a global culture that was centered on the US as the critical market, cementing the fame of both home-grown talent (such as Bob Dylan, Louis Armstrong, Gary Cooper, Marilyn Monroe) and foreigners who could crack through (the Beatles and other English Wave bands, Elizabeth Taylor, Sofia Loren).  This was capped by incredible accomplishments in aerospace engineering, nuclear weapons and power, and the rise of the space program.

The developments in the US' forms of participation in global affairs were dramatic and confounding, as the pendulum swung violently. During the period after 1928, the US went from providing the security for the war settlement terms to refusing to ratify participation in the international organization it had proposed.  A desperate effort by traditional America to keep the country from fulfilling its leadership role prevailed through much of the avoid its leadership, as the unstable international system it had birthed toddled, wobbled, then fell over the window ledge.  US'-sponsored democracy in Europe seemed headed for military defeat, until the extremist societies turned against each other in self-destructive frenzy  (in 1941, with Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, and with the attack on Pearl Harbor) .  

  We seemed to have learned a lesson, as the efforts after WWII to set the tone, containing totalitarian advances by championing decolonization and  development.  But, by the end of the 50th year of the period, it became apparent that the limits of American willingness to extend itself and its allies in foreign affairs were being reached with the seemingly unwinnable Vietnam War. 

I would say that The Decline ("The Long Way Down") began there.  Fifty years ago this time of year was the time when Bobby Kennedy's campaign was on the verge of a breakthrough, until he was cut down  (like his brother's, an assassination we have never quite come to understand). In the chaos that followed,  a new form of reaction arose, one that was never fully defeated and has arisen, once again, in these times.  1968 ended with an election in which a moderate Democrat (Hubert Humphrey)--viewed as too accommodating by many of his party--fell substantially short in the Electoral College despite a near-draw in popular vote. (Sound familiar?)

Yes, we dominated the next 50 years.  We had little choice but to protect our global empire, established even more clearly after the collapse of the Communist one, though the will was often lacking (think of the Senate authorization of the first Gulf War, clearly justified by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but which barely passed).  Now, we are clearly in a retreat mode with regard to our leadership in the world; while our objective has always been to execute policies which ultimately benefit ourselves, the philosophy in the past has often been that helping the world--to settle conflicts, help development, promote freedom and  international trade--would be the best way to accomplish these.  Now, the willingness to look for those mutual benefits is either gone or greatly reduced. 

The result is that the current American hydraulic force on that great plain of civilization is one of an undertow, pulling some of our great contributions back out to sea.  We are still a force to be reckoned with, but the admiration the Obama Administration engendered in the global community is gone--or worse.

From Bill Maher's New Rules this week:  Trump always says he's 'looking out for the little guy'.  Turns out he was talking about his dick. 

He definitely read him the Riot Act'. But not exactly:  I looked up the original Riot Act and found this: 
Riot Act of 1715 (repealed 1967) .authorized local authorities to declare any group of twelve or more people to be unlawfully assembled, and thus have to disperse or face punitive action.--Wikipedia. 

That's more like a Trumpian thing.  

March sports report

Can Anyone Here Play This Game? 
The primary feature of this season in college basketball has been the inconsistency of the top teams.  In the regular season, and in the top conference postseason tournaments, the top-seeded teams have proven the ability to lose unexpectedly.  Fine, but all this is but the prelude to the main event--the NCAA tournament.

The first two rounds of the tournament (I don't count the preliminary "First Four" as a round) had a large number of upset results.  This is not truly surprising, as almost every top team runs across one or two tough challenges:  the test of the potential championship team is the ability to pull those games out.  What does seem different to me this year is the fact of multiple  games in which highly-ranked teams were blown out by lower-ranked ones.  We start with #1-ranked Virginia's 20-point loss to a number #16 seed, UMBC; also in the first round, #4 Arizona losing to #13 Buffalo by 21.  In the second round, #2 North Carolina lost by 21 to #7 Texas Tech and #4 Auburn lost to #5 Clemson by 33.  Parity is when the mid-majors , weaker teams in the big conferences, or champions of lower-rated leagues keep it close against the big boys (an example being #11 Syracuse throwing a nasty zone and defeating #3 Michigan State).  These blowout losses by high-rated teams reflect lack of preparation, or of motivation.  Which is hard to understand if these players and coaches are really focused on the here and now, and not their NBA futures.

I will generalize and say that most of the teams left are ones that have flawed regular seasons but come in to the tourney with a hot streak. The one exception is Villanova, which looks like a potential champion, with both an excellent regular season and strong performances in the first two rounds.  The left side of the bracket is pretty well decimated, with Kentucky and Michigan coming in hot and looking like favorites to make the Final Four, being also the highest-seeded survivors in their regions (UK at #5 and MU at #3).  The fourth spot will likely be decided by a final-eight showdown between Duke and Kansas: #1 and #2 seeds, each packed with talent and 7 regular-season losses--a lot for teams seeded #1 and #2.

The most interesting game of this third round will be the matchup of #11 Loyola-Chicago and #7 Nevada:  the first team won with last-second baskets in both rounds, while Nevada came from 22 points down to win its last game.  There's a lot more I could say about it, like how the Ramblers of Loyola won the first NCAA championship I can remember in my life and haven't been close since then, but I see it as a prelim to the regional final, where I would expect that game's winner then to lose to Kentucky. The Wildcats, my perennial fave which I will defend against all derision or snark, are an extreme Caliparian team (or I would call them "callipygian", which means with a big tail end), starting five freshmen, and their late-season run has changed this team's theme from "they should come back" to potential Final Four and raising three or four to potential "one and done" status.  They find themselves unexpectedly favored after seeds 1-4 in their region all lost in the first two rounds.

I have heard the NBA is reconsidering the "one and done" rule.  I would suggest they treat the colleges like the developmental league they are and agree to subsidize certain draftable freshman players to stay on for one or two additional seasons; if they actually do change it, more likely they'll go in the other direction and reinstate straight-to-pro high schoolers.  I hope not; LeBron James and Moses Malone notwithstanding, it's not in the interest of the players affected, the NBA teams themselves (who will pay more for less), or, more obviously, the health of the college game.

Tearing Myself from "March Madness"...
to normal martial/Martian sports activity.  (Speaking of which, I dream of a pro volleyball game played in a low-gravity Mars arena--I think it will happen before 2100.) 

The NBA heads toward a brief spasm of relevant regular season games early next month when the wild and tight battle for seeding positions (or just making the playoffs, in the Western Conference) will climax.  There may also be a one-downsmanship competition for the worst record (and best chances at a very early first-round draft pick), though that will likely be determined a week or more before the season's end, after which the best losers will simply have to continue to lose. At the top of the house, the Houston Rockets, with their supreme backout duo of James Harden and Chris Paul, have emerged as the most likely challenger to the Golden State Warriors' dominance, but either or both could be susceptible to a surprise playoff loss in earlier rounds against dangerous teams like San Antonio, Oklahoma City, or Portland.

Baseball's new season is shaping up as a few teams with outsized talent (Dodgers, Cubs, Astros, Indians, and the Yankees) and a lot of teams at various stages of rebuilding.  My Reds seem to be about halfway through a six-year program to dive deep and slowly resurface.   The game is subtly changing, with more strikeout pitchers, more emphasis on relievers and on home runs--to me, a little less intricate and fascinating, but, you know, "chicks dig the long flies".  Or so it is said.  The Yanks' signing of Giancarlo Stanton to make a 1-2 power combo with Aaron Judge feels scarily familiar with the shadow of previous Bronx dynasties, and with the Yanks now boasting a true ace now in Luis Severino, I feel threatened.

Chelsea Rule is not all OK this year, and I'm afraid that yet another top coach has about played out his string.  The 3-0 defeat at Barcelona--the best club team in the world-- is not shameful, but the team has underperformed for Antonio Conte this year.   With that game having eliminated the Blues from the Champions League, they are now down to one possible trophy, having reached the semifinal of the F.A. Cup, and they have a challenging path to finish in the top four and remain qualified for the Champions league next year.   At least Manchester City--far and away the best English team this year--was recently eliminated from the FA by Wigan, so they won't win everything.  They may reach the heights of a Champions League final, if they get a favorable draw in the next rounds; they are that good. This next round, they are matched against Liverpool, the team that gave them their only Premier League loss so far this season, but I'm not expecting this team to be their nemesis.

Post-Pre-Oscars Posting Analysis

(Post-Oscar text in bold italics like these. See my 2/25 comment after the 11/25 "'Fall' Movie Preview" posting.)

I've now seen almost all the movies I mentioned in the preview (exceptions are "Call Me By My Name", "Phantom Thread", and the J. Paul Getty and Eric Clapton ones).

For anyone waiting for my choices before placing their bets on Oscars tonight, here they are:

Slam Dunk (Doesn't matter what I prefer, this is what is): Best Picture "The Shape of Water" (I don't believe "3 Billboards" will win, except as a feint in the announcement); Best Actor Gary Oldman "Darkest Hour"; Director Guillermo del Toro "Shape";  Animated "Coco"; Original Screenplay "Get Out" (Peele's "consolation for the night")--better not be '3 Billboards', as I thought the screenplay was the worst part of it. One would think "Phantom Thread" would have to win Costume Design.

Six for six. Peele's was the riskiest choice, because the category was so strong.  But as I said, "This is Us."  (or as SNL brilliantly satirized last night, "This is U.S." 

Interesting races--two-favorite categories:  Lead Actress--Frances McDormand vs. Sally Hawkins.  I think Frances will win, though I'd prefer Hawkins.  Both make feminist statements, which I think will be the winning cause of the night (over gays, blacks).
Adapted Screenplay--I would say it's between Aaron Sorkin for "Molly's Game" and James Ivory for "Call Me By Your Name".  Maybe the Wolverine one ("Logan"), if they want a crowd-pleasing choice.

Nothing wrong here; I wasn't sure but felt Oscar would take the opportunity to crown Ivory's career and reward him for his crossover to screenwriter in this film. The Merchant-Ivory collaboration remains the gold standard for modern execution of a certain type of film. 
  

Multi-faceted ones--
Both supporting acting ones:  Male - I like Willem Dafoe in "The Florida Project" over Plummer as Getty or the powerful but understated performance of Richard Jenkins in "Shape", with Harrelson and Rockwell splitting votes for "3 Billboards".  Female - I think it has to be Laurie Metcalf for "Lady Bird", though all the nominees seem deserving of consideration.

Original Score will be an interesting face off between three noisy symphonic types who may divide the old school vote (Hans Zimmer, John Williams of course, but also, Alexandre Desplat--ninth nomination, one win) and a couple of more interesting ones: Carter Burwell (100th credit, 1 previous nom) and Jonny Greenwood of one of my favorite rock bands, Radiohead (there's a reason for me to see "Phantom Thread"!) I'd go with Burwell, on the merits.  Also Original Song, though I think Mary J. Blige will win it (consolation prize, not Supporting Actress) over the "Coco" one (the more traditional choice); my wife likes the one from "Call Me..." by offbeat rock musician Sufjan Stevens.

Then there is Cinematography--without Chivo in the race, it is more wide open than usual.  I could go with any of the noms; I would think Dan Laustsen for "Shape" should be favored.

Amazing!  I went 0-for-5 in this section.  I should have seen Desplat winning for score and Roger Deakins for cinematography.  On the supporting actor categories, I should have consulted fivethirtyeight.com before posting, to remind me of the solid data (relating to the correlations between certain previous award winners to specific Oscar winners) to have expected Rockwell and Allison Janney. 

Not so interesting two-way:  The Sound ones, between Blade Runner and Shape of Water, Film editing, Shape and 3 Billboards, Visual Effects, between Blade and the Star Wars one; and Production Design, Shape and Dunkirk. I'd go with Shape (twice) on sound, Blade on Visuals, 3 Billboards film, and Dunkirk, production.

The rest: I have no clue.  Maybe the "Aleppo" one for Documentary Feature (take that, Gary Johnson!)

I basically had each of these more technical awards individually wrong, though the overall results that Dunkirk, Blade Runner and Shape of Water would lead the voting was directionally right.  

The Oscar program quality I would rate as average; there were moments, particularly with women, children, and minorities, and I liked the true surprise registered on the faces of  those winners of the multi-faceted races  that I guessed wrong.  The best part was the series of montage sequences of old winners around the 90th anniversary theme, particularly to introduce the winners of the acting awards.  I am not a fan of Jimmy Kimmel or his comedy choices, though I am appreciative of his willingness to be human on screen. 

I think my results show that there is both a high degree of predictability, and of pure randomness, in the  winners--the lesson for smart bettors is to pick their spots, and avoid the other categories, as well as the overall winner count lotteries.   Fivethirtyeight's analysis was 8-for-8 perfect, but they stopped there and shared my closing about the rest:  "haven't a clue".  

My Monthly Rant: A Plug (Unpaid) and a "Tweet"

This is from a group that calls itself "The Resistance" in its email communications. This  headshot picture of Trump seems to shown him in hellish flames (also very Wizard of Oz).  That is what "inflammatory" is all about.  I am not endorsing all this site's policies--although I agree with a boycott of direct Trump Co. companies and some of their enablers--I recognize that a boycott that is too broad is impractical.  But I do like their way with words. 

Dear 

How long will it be before Trump tries to arm fetuses?  Only for self-defense, of course.

In the wake of the mass shooting at Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the Lyin’ King thinks he has a solution.  Guns for teachers. 

Well, at least he didn’t suggest bazookas for boys.  Or grenades for girls.

How could anyone this thick call himself President of the United States?  Please, contribute to our campaign to end the Trump Regime, and Stop Stupid >>

Would someone please explain to the Short-Fingered Vulgarian that crossfire is unlikely to end the problem of assault-weapon attacks in schools? 

Would someone please explain to the Talking Yam that his “brilliant” idea would fall victim to the simplest possible countermeasure?  The countermeasure called shoot the teacher first?

Just how dumb is this latest Trump-twaddle?

You could make a better argument for universal Facetiming to class.

You could make a better argument for mandatory bullet-proof vests for all students.

You could make a better argument for refusing school admission to anyone unless he or she is naked.  (Go try to conceal an AK-47 when you’re nude.)

And here is the ultimate better argument: Donald Trump should not be President of the United States.

Please contribute to $10, $25, $50 or whatever you can spare to the most important issue in America today: how to save us from the ignorance, asininity, imbecility, obtuseness, brainlessness, recklessness and outright idiocy of Donald J. Trump >>

http://www.lockhimupnow.org/trump_lies

And, for the RNC: 

a reply I liked (second-hand) for their request on Twitter for comments and suggestions: 

S.O.S. USA@DeliaMacD1

Replying to @GOP

1) Stop the corruption within your administration.
2) Sign the sanctions against Russia
3) Stop taking blood money from the NRA and sign common sense gun legislation
4) You broke our healthcare-fix it
5) Clean Dreamer Bill
6) Stop tweeting like a crazy loon

1:24 AM - Feb 24, 2018

• 140
• 26 people are talking about this

Italian Elections 2018

What could be less interesting, right?  Wrong! I won't say that this is a world-history making event, since Western civilization's continuation or development no longer depends on the fate of  political struggles in Rome (OK it's been awhile since that was the case), but I find it to be a subject with important ramifications, for both Europe and the US, as well as a fascinating case study.

Modern Italian culture, in all its facets, has been a particular interest of mine, ever since I "discovered its existence"in plain sight, Christopher Columbus-like, about 40 years ago.   A little background on the national scene follows--please bear with me and I will try to be brief. Then I will go into more depth about the likely outcomes and the major personalities involved. 

Italy since World War II has prospered spectacularly, but unevenly.  By most measures, Northern and Central Italy are on par with the most developed countries of Europe, but the Southern part of the boot and Sicily have lagged.  This has been true much longer; one could say that the initial disparity present at the founding of the modern state (mid-19th century) has never been remedied.  The Parliamentary state has consistently disappointed people's expectations, but there is still strong support among the people for democratic ideals.  The Italian economy is recovering more strongly recently after a long, slow recovery from the Great Crater, but it is still a difficult place to do business, for many reasons.  The wealth of the people comes from their great assets:  land and people, and to a large extent, the interaction of the two. 

Why Does It Matter? 
I will make this quick.  It is a significant country in Europe, and if its election is won by the right--which has various Trumpian characteristics among its leaders, including xenophobia, corruption (though probably not with Russia so much), immigration, turning the economy to the favor of the wealthy, and clownish behavior--it will be very harmful for the European Union as we currently know it.  Many of the center-right coalition openly advocate going the Brexit route, and Italy, unlike Britain, is a core member of the EU initiative from its very earliest form in the postwar EEC.

If we think more narrowly, the result is also significant for the US, in the sense that it is yet another very relevant test of democracy and of the public desire, or lack of desire, to reject tribalist and ultra-nationalist thinking, and thus a possible portent of upcoming US political soundings.  Unlike the US, Italy has  a very real current immigration problem--poverty-stricken people coming over to Italy in boats from Libya (after migrating there from many other Third World countries), and there is also a general Italian view that the country has not been properly supported by the rest of Europe in handling this peaceful, but unwanted, burden of handling mass migration. 

The Scenarios and Their Chances
So, to the political structure (of the moment):  This parliamentary election will be conducted March 5 under different rules from the last one, five years ago.  (In a somewhat rare occurrence among Italian governments since the postwar republic replaced constitutional monarchy, the Parliament remained intact for the full five-year term.)  The new Parliament will be composed of a mixture of proportional representation and "first-by-the-post" election of individual districts by plurality (like the US House).  The distribution of seats among the parties for the proportional portion* is somewhat apparent from the opinion polling--opinion moves fairly slowly, in general. The wild card is how the individual seats may play out, as the balances are very fine.  There are a number of possible coalitions, in classic Italian fashion.

On this one, I have some small skin in the game (predicti.org); I will make some references to the market they have on this election:  "Who will be Prime Minister on July 31?"
Here is my list of  the possible outcomes, in order of likelihood:

1) Generally unclear, no coalition easily identifiable.    This has two major variations:
a) totally indecisive result, and everyone sees that it's so (no party or coalition above 30% or so)--the Parliament might seat, make some new rules, or not, but just call a new election.
b) no surprises in the outcomes, continuing discussions, no new outcome on the horizon.  This could go on for a very long time--the 7/31 deadline is a good reference point, as it is shortly before the midsummer break called "ferragosto" when everyone, and especially the politicians, shut it down and go on vacation.  In this case, there could be a continuation of the caretaker government that has been running since the collapse of the Renzi government (see below).  Paolo Gentiloni is the Prime Minister, from the Partito Democratico (yes, the Democratic Party, and it is very comparable to the US one).  He's a dignified, moderate techno-bureaucrat; few would regret the result, though it would be a defeat for: 

2) The Center-right coalition.  This is the only currently-announced coalition that has any chance to get close to a governing majority by itself. The leader of this combination of five parties is none other than Silvio Berlusconi, back for another run at it after his conviction and retreat from the scene.  His party is called Forza Italia (I would translate it as "Go, Italy!"), and it's the only one of the alliance that has meaningful national appeal.  The problem is, because of his conviction, he's supposed to be ineligible to actually serve in the new government.  So, there's a very interesting range of possible PM's.  My money (in predictit.org) for this scenario is on Antonio Tajani, the most respectable of the leaders of Forza (FI).  His odds have surged--I bought him at .14 a month ago and he's up to .33 (on a .01 to .99 scale, pre-election;  after it's decided 7/31, values will go to 0 to 1.000).  Good gains so far, and I may hang around to see if I can make more.

3) Center-left coalition.  There are two big parties in this (potential) space:  the PD (Dems), who had control of Parliament the last five years, and the one-of-a-kind Italian invention called Movimento Cinque Stelle ("Five Star Movement", abbreviated as M5S).  It just missed five years ago, when headed by a sharp-tongued comedian, Beppe Grillo; it has shown some staying power after some purges and other separations se and is now headed by an emergent 31-year-old talent, Luigi di Maio.  Its themes have been opposition to the Establishment and all the other parties, use of 21st-Century technology to create democracy, bloc voting, and eternal internal squabble.  If di Maio has conquered that last tendency then he would be truly deserving of leadership, but probably not as the PM this time around.
They (M5S) and the PD will be the leading single parties in the proportional vote (as they were in 2013) dividing 50-60% of the total.  The question is whether these two could get together; every early indication is no (M5S has sworn off all alliances), but that underestimates the Italian impulse to conspire:  I believe that if the PD and M5S both became convinced that their alliance (after the election, of course, first they have to attack each other all through the campaign) were necessary to prevent someone like Berlusconi winning, they might find a way. 
If there were to be an actual agreement, I would think the likely form would be to agree upon someone unexpected, neither Gentiloni nor di Maio (and not PD leader Matteo Renzi):  they could find some sap from another of the many tiny parties sprinkled through this range, maybe someone who won their district but whose party didn't reach the 3% threshold level for proportional representation.  (In predictit.org terms, all Yes bets would then lose;  if you liked this theory, you'd bet No on everyone and make a relatively small profit.)  More likely that M5S would fulfill their promise of non-participation by abstaining for some center-left variation of government formation, thus allowing it to happen. 

4) "La Truffa" - Somehow, the center-right find some tricky way to put Berlusconi at the head of the government (despite his not being in the Parliament):  they make a law to allow it? 

5) A PD-dominated government - This is a variation on #1 in which the PD does surprisingly well, such that they--and any smaller partners they can find--get to 40% or so of the Parliamentary seats.  Then, suddenly, a government headed by Renzi would become a possibility. 
The problem is Renzi, for my taste the best prominent politician--intelligent, honest, uncorrupted--that Italy has had for a long time. (At least since the deaths of Aldo Moro and Enrico Berlinguer, for those like me who've been following this stuff for decades.) Naturally, everyone hates him--except for his admirers, who have become a lot less numerous since he became a loser.  That happened with the electoral referendum last October.  He openly staked his career on it, a valiant but ultimately and totally unsuccessful crusade to make the company more governable by making it less democratic. 
Shards of his old support have since dropped off to various splinter groups (and the M5M) since then. He is now seen by the left as a would-be Napoleon who betrayed the working class; most of his remaining appeal is to the moderate left wing of the former Christian Democrat party, from whence he came.  I would say his game now is to let someone else try for a few years--and eventually fail.  He would hope to maintain his role until when he could then make a comeback.  He's still only 43. 

Additional Notes
It is rather unlikely that the scenario will present itself immediately from the electoral results (though we will not have to wait long to hear them--the polling is very efficient, as is the tabulation).  Instead, certainty that there will be no electoral majority, and the multiplicity of parties, will mean that the outcome will take weeks or months to emerge.  A recent article in The Economist suggests an obscure southern Italian party (Noi con l'italia--"we are with Italy"), recently formed, could get a surprising number of local district wins and become a critical factor.  In the respected Italian weekly magazine L'Espresso, a writer under the name of "corleone" (could he be from Sicily, perhaps?) points to the elections for the President of the two houses of Parliament (scheduled for March 23, or 18 days after the general election) to get a clue where this thing will be going. 

The other alternatives to Tajani or Berlusconi as PM for the center-right range from scary to laughable; the most noteworthy miscreant after Silvio is Matteo Salvini, the leader of the Lega Nord (Northern League), who leads a party popular in the North whose supporters are tired of the welfare queens and foreigners from Third World countries getting all their tax dollars.  You can see the appeal, right?  His party will be the second-largest in the center-right coalition, earning 13-15% and winning a number of constituencies. He is pretty much disqualified from being the PM because of the intense distaste everyone else has for him, but he would be a force* in the government if it happened:  I imagine he would then be able to lobby for sending the Italian navy down to patrol the Libyan shores, a provocative military stance that could either work--stopping the boatpeople, and their exploitative aggregators, at the Libyan ports--or start actual conflict.  (Libya was an Italian colony for decades, until the Fascists lost it during WWII.)

I have a lot of (very cheap) shares on Renzi, who is currently viewed as a longshot with no chance; a few on Gentiloni, hoping to average down sometime down the road; and a moderate bet on Tajani (another for which I will add more shares if his price drops).  I have No bets on Berlusconi, Salvini, and Di Maio.   The current polling--Wikipedia is maintaining an excellent graph which shows each data point for each party over time--indicates eight parties will make it past the 3% threshold (while several others will win seats through having localized strength.  If you'll permit me to use the TLA's (two-letter acronyms, or three-letter acronyms) I reviewed above, one gets, approximately, the following current values for those who name their choice:  M5S 28%, PD 23%,  FI 18%, LN 13%. Left Alliance 6%, 5% for a neo-Fascist remnant now called Fratelli d'Italia ("Brothers of Italy", a quote from the first line of the national anthem), and about 8% for others. 

*Sorry for the word, couldn't resist. 

Some Sporting Weekends

SBLII!
Seems that the owners of the Big Game have been persecuting those who use the official name of the professional American football championship in vain (or especially without the sponsor's name in front of it, now).  I was never one to refer to the SB in that fashion (I did a search), usually my name for it is the Stupid Bowl.   That's because, historically, the games tended not to be very close:  with the emotions so wound up, typically a team would get out ahead and then blitz the opposing quarterback silly and win by outrageous margins, while the announcers are forced to try to keep viewers watching somehow to justify their ridiculous advertising rates.  It's been a little better--the games, that is, I don't have an opinion of the trend in quality of ads-- in the last decade or so.

I don't have a favorite NFL team, but I do have a default rooting interest against the perennial champions in all the team sports.  This year's matchup was a fair one, of the top regular-season teams, from each conference, and they delivered a very strong game that ranks among the best--whatever the ratings.  t was a high-skill, closely-contested, fairly low-drama affair that followed expectations until the moment Tom Brady finally got sacked and fumbled late in the fourth quarter. The story of backup QB Nick Foles, who performed admirably, and proved superior in the key category of quarterback as pass receiver (not one you'll find in many fantasy leagues, for sure), is just as compelling a QB hero story to me as T.B. going for his Nth (poor Gisele in the owner's booth!) or the improbably-named Joe Montana, or some other popular future TV star like Peyton Manning or Bret Favre.  (But not as compelling as Colin Kapernick, when he first emerged, seemingly out of nowhere, that Monday NIght football game. Kapernick's story will make a better movie someday.)  I

I gave the Eagles about a 27% chance of winning the game, 5-2 odds. I didn't find that particular bet out there, but then I wasn't looking for bets on the Super Bowl.  I don't like betting on the spread on any of these sports, and to me the over-under, while statistically sound, doesn't have much relevnce to the game itself.  It's just a random variable with a probability distribution (though a different one each game depending on the circumstances).


Mowinckel Rules
I will admit I was somewhat anxious about the timing and location for the Winter Olympics.  It's bad enough that the town is a short distance from the heavily militarized border with North Korea; beyond that, note that Russia's team has been banned from the games because of the history of state-run doping. In that sense, the detente between north and South Korea-for the games, epitomized by the combined Korean hockey teams, offers two intentional thumbs in the eye (or is it both eyes) to the low-value TrumPence Korea saber-rattling strategy, and a great relief for fans that violence is not likely to spoil the fun.

I have been much more engaged with this year's Winter Olympics than the last couple ones.  I didn't see much of Sochi, but it seemed like a bummer to me; the Vancouver games were at a difficult time for me personally and I couldn't spare the time then.  The people who have emerged as young heroes this time, like Chloe Kim, the Korean skeleton genius (didn't get the name), Red Gerrard, the improbable Ester Ledecka (the snowboarder who won an Alpine event with borrowed skis), are very inspiring.

My favorite, though, is Ragnhild Mowinkel (rain-Hild, Mowinkel like Bullwinkel) a Norse woman who surprised everyone, including herself, by winning two silver medals in Alpine skiing--apparently she is the first woman to win medals from Norway in Alpine events.  She epitomizes the Viking Mystique: With the superior performance of the Norwegian men in Alpine skiiers supplementing their more typical successes (men and women) in the Nordic events, they are the runaway leaders in the national medal race.  It's the go-to country, as in, "we could only hope to go to Norway if we have to go into exile".   Certainly it's not producing people who would go to a shithole like this one.  But, I mean 'shithole' in the good sense-the importance of feces in the cycles of human and biological affairs is often underestimated.

It's hard to ignore the nationalistic element of the TV coverage of the Olympics, but i try.  Most of the ads, too, though I have to say I like the one for California Almonds that shows the US curler laying down a rock for the bored kids swiffing the kitchen floor.

Maybe I'm just getting to be a softie, but I'm also more amazed, and less bored, than ever before with the figure skating competition.  First, it seems like they finally have a scoring system that fairly determines outcomes. The quality of the top performances is sometimes breathtaking:  I'm thinking of the Japanese men's gold medal winner (and his teammate), the top two pairs dance teams, the Russian women!   And the Americans....

Look let's get real about this--anytime an American wins a medal in any Olympic sport, besides freestyle skiing/snowboarding or the bogus short track speed skating events, it's a major success. The point is, it always has been.  Look, we showed up, we tried.  I like the spirit--and the apparent amateur nature--of the US  men's hockey team (eliminated in the quarterfinals, in a "shootout"). These are not our games--we are participants.  I'm OK with that.

To make my point more clearly, Stupid Bowl is at heart a big, overhyped TV  show (think of the three-hour pregame, or the halftime extravaganza), but it offered a quality sporting event this year.  The Olympics are a quality sporting event despite the network's efforts to make it an entertainment program centered around nationalistic cheerleading.

Some Quick Hits
Basketball:  Now that we are finally getting past the trade deadline and the All-Star break, the real NBA season can begin.  I'm afraid I'm serious: the first two-thirds of the regular season seem to be little more than a warm-up for the pre-playoff exhibitions (the remaining regular season games) and the playoffs.  LeBron James finally has the teammates he wants, and he's ready to rally his team from their mediocre performance to crush the Eastern Conference opposition.  I will expect Spurs' coach Popovich to pull a rabbit out of his hat and suddenly put a healthy, rested Kawhi Leonard out there, with a similarly healthy and rested Rudy Gay, to supplement a mostly-young, partly terribly-old (Ginobili, Tony Parker) team that has learned to play well without them.  Will a boost like those two put them into Warriors-challenging territory?  We may find out in the second round of the playoffs; they could pull an upset of historic proportions.  The Houston Rockets have something to say, too; they want a shot at Golden State in the Western championship round--it may not happen that way, they may have to wait until next year, when the new scheme might have them playing each other in the finals.

I see the NBA is reconsidering its "one and done' policy with regard to college players.  They're probably thinking of just eliminating it--I would suggest going the other way to "two and done".  Despite the inequity, denying these future millionaires their gratification another year, making them work for nothing with insufficient career insurance, it would produce a better sport, both at the college level and the pros.  Not enough veteran savvy, too many talented youngsters with poor team skills.

P.S. There is one spirited contest remaining for the regular season:  a multi-sided battle of sneaky tanking strategies among eight different teams for the worst records, which will lead to higher draft picks.  The bad teams will find phony reasons to shut down their best players for the most minor injuries in order to help their chances to do badly.  The trade deadline moves had several aspects of this, for example the Bulls' trade of Nikola Mirotic, who failed to get with the program after returning from a long injury (his teammate busted his face with a fist in a team practice) and played his best ball, causing the Bulls unexpectedly to go on a lengthy win streak.  He had to be traded.  i love the NBA; the skill levels and athleticism are off the charts, but this is very bad.  The league has to change the rules so there is much less benefit in the draft lottery for finishing at the very bottom; instead, the teams that just miss the playoffs should get more chances to get good draft picks.

Soccer: I have to give the multi-millionaire Arabs who own Manchester City football club the credit due to them, as they have supplanted Chelseas's Roman Abramovich as the most effective big-time investors in producing a powerhouse English Premier League team.  They have a chance to tie, or even surpass, crosstown rival Manchester United's greatest single-year accomplishments.  As for Chelsea, they are in a decent shape to stay in the Champions League--next year--by finishing in the top four.  There are five very strong teams battling for the three open slots available behind Man City,.  As for this year, by getting nosed out for second in their first-round group, they ended up drawing Barcelona in the round of 16.  They are proving to be a worthy opponent, which means after their 1-1 draw at home (great strategy, almost, to keep Barca from getting that crucial away goal) they are probably in trouble in the rematch.  If they score first, they've got a real shot at pulling off the upset, but otherwise it is likely to go downhill very fast.

Baseball:  Speaking of multi-millionaire investors producing winning teams, the big preseason question is whether the Yankees have bought themselves into a chapionship team--I'm tempted to say, "again".  Certainly the signing of top slugger Giancarlo Stanton, to go with the Yanks' 2017 rookie breakout power sensation Aaron Judge is the stuff of Yankee legends:  Ruth-Gehrig-DiMaggio, Maris-Mantle, Mattingly-Reggie (that' was a trick; they never played together), regardless of whether they can take over the AL.  The defending champion Astros, hungry and unfulfilled Indians, and the RedSox all will try to make life difficult for them, as they can compare offensively and--at least the first two--probably have better starting pitching.
In the National League, the Nationals seem to be fading, leaving the Cubs and Dodgers as the big-time power brokers.  The Cubs stepped up, in the wake of likely allowing their formerly superstar starter Jake Arrieta to depart, by paying big money for Yu Darvish, the mercurial Japanese pticher who couldn't get it done for the Dodgers last year.  The Dodgers have plenty more where Darvish came from, though--I don't mean Japan, the Angels got the big Japanese name this year in Shohei Ohtani, who could be a crowd-pleasing sensation--I mean their bench: the Dodgers have six or seven potential ace starting pitchers, starting with the ace of trumps, Clayton Kershaw.  As for the Reds, they appear to be in Year 4 of an eight-year rebuilding program.  I just hope Joey Votto lasts long enough to still be playing then.

Tennis: My tennis world is still agog at Roger Federer's triumph defending his Australian Open title.  He didn't have to get past Rafael Nadal this time, but I think his level was such that he might have been able to do it again this year.  As for the women, the 2018 story will be when Serena returns.  It may not be real soon, but the crown remains empty until she comes back and has a go at taking it back.

Total (Political) War

The current shutdown exercise--emphasis on "current"--is a relatively minor skirmish in the larger battle for power which is going to be fought--in the trenches, in the air, on the beaches--for 34 more months, without any break, and at tremendous financial expense.

Setting the Stage, Sticking My Neck Out with Prediction
The ultimate objective is the 2020 election, one which may determine the long-term future of this nation.  I do not believe I exaggerate: If after all this chaos, dysfunction, and madness, the Trumpian Republicans can succeed in retaining power in 2020, I would view our future to be an accelerating downward spiral into insularity, a diminishing role in global affairs, and constant domestic strife, aggravated by massively increasing inequality and an exploding debt.  To keep power, the oligarchy will move toward despotism, and what is left of our rights and freedoms will become a sad joke.  We can see some portents of their ways, and the lengths to which they would go, in the recent examples of the manipulation of the Supreme Court nomination process, in 2016 and 2017, and the efforts to suppress votes which the Republicans are attempting in several states where they have the power to do so,

2020 is the great prize, and although we are looking at it from great distance (in political terms),  there is every reason to think it will be a banner year for the Democrats.  For one thing, in the same way that the Democrats will be defending many Senate seats this year in red states, in 2020 the Republicans will be on the defensive, trying to hold seats in states that tilt Democratic.

I would guess there is better than a 50-50 chance that the US economy will be either in recession or not long out of it by 2020, with the most likely scenario in the meantime being a ramping up of inflation.  That would be due to the growing budget deficits, to suppression of trade leading to higher import costs, and the labor shortage-- incredible in this age of shrinking demand of labor, but created by the public's demand for more jobs and the politicians' willingness to bend policy to support the desire--which is now finally driving up wages.  The Fed is trying to move up low interest rates sufficiently to contain it, but politics are making it hard:  first an unneeded tax cut, and next will be a burst of additional spending on "infrastructure"--likely to end up being a massive pork-barrel spending on low-priority developments to further pay off well-connected Trump sycophants. If inflation starts surpassing acceptable levels, there will be little choice but to jack up rates, and that will lead to the recession I would predict for 12-24 months from now.  I don't think it will be a mild one, either:  the bursting of the bubblicious markets, the return of consumer overindebtedness, and the failure to learn enough lessons from the last recession in reducing the risk in our financial structure suggest to me that this will be one that leads to stagnation, a sharply weakened dollar and a sharp increase in unemployment.

Then there is the destruction of the Republican brand which the GOP and its alleged leader, the accidental President, are just doing to themselves.   Even with all the basic measures of the US economy going great right now, the public is disenchanted with this one-party government, with the performance of the President, and with the direction the country is going.

Thank goodness for that!  If it were otherwise, if this past year somehow conned a majority of Americans into thinking they were being governed well, then there would be reason for despair.  Instead, we are encouraged, we are furious, and we will not be bought off by something like the phony appeal of the recent tax bill. 

2018: A Historical Analogy
This year's midterm elections are an important and necessary phase in this war, though its result is unlikely to be a decisive one. The Republicans would need a substantial reversal in the current trends to be able to maintain the degree of dominance they have today in both the Federal and state governments, while the Democrats' absolute best outcome would be to reduce their deficit in governorships and state legislatures while gaining narrow majorities in the House and, more unlikely, in the Senate.  It is inconceivable that we will come out of 2018 with the Republican side not in control of the Federal judicial and executive branches. Almost certainly, this year's result will be a closer contest for governmental power, with no reprieve at all from the continuous war of words, and immediate transition to the early stages of the 2020 general election.  Still, the contests this year will be critical in setting the terms of the legislative battles to be held in the 2019-2020 Congress, and of  contests in basically all the swing states, like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Arizona, Minnesota and Florida:  all of them have contested battles both for the governors' office (and control of state legislatures) and for a Senate seat (and for some, two Senate seats).

If I were looking for a historical reference to which to compare this stage of the war, I would say that 2018 could be the equivalent of the Battle of Stalingrad for the opponents of the Drumpfenreich;  the event that turns the tide, the one that gives its opponents a view of a possible victory, though the path ahead be long and bloody. Stalingrad was a long, cruel campaign of attrition and destruction, and the Democrats will have to endure, cold-bloodedly, months of hardship, tremendous cost, and frequent setbacks, just as the Soviets did. 

The 2018 campaign will have three fronts--the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the state elections (the great majority of states have their governors' races in the midterm).  There are different conditions in each battle.  With the states, the Republicans have a huge lead which will certainly be reduced; in the House a great deal of uncertainty is present, but the Republicans are on the run; and in the Senate the Republicans have an edge, in terms of the relatively small number of seats they need to defend, while the Democrats have to defend both many seats and many in which their party is the weaker one in the state.  More on this later.

The Current SNAFU
I expect the current shutdown to be resolved quickly--maybe today.  It is about getting agreement on the short-term legislative agenda in Congress:  how long to temporarily fund the government this time, when the immigration debate will be held and under what rules.  It is true that both parties' stubbornness created this dysfunction and thus share the blame; it is also true that both sides are effectively taking hostages:  the Democrats are using the shutdown to force a debate on immigration, and specifically on the status of the DACA recipients (children of undocumented immigrants who have long maintained residence here, but who have been exempted from deportation--at least, until Trump's executive order will take effect in March).  The Republicans' hostages are the DACA "Dreamers" themselves--they are using the Democrats' commitment to preserving, or improving, the Dreamers' status in order to get more immigration restrictions, and Trump is using it to get funding for his Stupid Wall with Mexico--something the Democrats would never otherwise consent to doing.

The Senate Democrats are on dangerous ground:  forcing this shutdown--and it is true that they did do that, by withholding their votes Friday night from allowing a continuing resolution to come to the floor for a final vote--should not backfire on them in a big way.  On the other hand, though, the actual debate on DACA will be painful for them, as the Republicans will try to load up as much misery as they can onto a relatively straightforward question of allowing them to stay--something the Republican leadership and the President have said they are willing to do.  A large portion of the Republican Congressional contingent is against that, though, and they will force their leadership to add more border restrictions, funding to start the Stupid Wall--and then they will still vote against it.  If this bill gets loaded down excessively with poison pills, or worse, if it does not pass--and the relevant history of the past two decades is that, as an immigration bill gets broader, its support gets weaker--then the Democrats will be in a bad spot.  They cannot afford to let go the small bit of leverage they have, with must-pass government funding, until they get what they want, and that might mean a longer, more brutal shutdown later.

The fact is that the Republicans have the trump cards (sorry!) in this deal, and the Democrats are in a somewhat desperate position, having made commitments that they do not have the power to fulfill.  The turtle/weasel cross heading the Senate, the talking sphincter in the White House, and the epitome of white male privilege in the House Speaker's chair are going to seek revenge on the Democrats for making the Republicans' governance look ineffectual.  The fact is, though, the Republicans own their inability, and this first year of Drumpfite chaos only confirms what was apparent during the Bushite Misrule (2001-09):  the GOP is no longer fit to govern, and becomes less so each year.

Excerpts from The Saga of the Talking Presidential Sphincter

Was this the tipping point finally?   I could easily see Trump pull a Sarah Palin on the whole country and pass the baton to Mike Pence.  Bad as Pence would be, I have to prefer that to this monstrosity and embarrassment.

I've heard a lot of criticism of Michael Wolff, and it may be warranted, but I really enjoyed the article in New York Magazine about the Trumps on Election Night (an excerpt from the book).  Wolff makes a great analogy using Mel Brooks' movie "The Producers"--the campaign that was intended to lose dramatically failed to achieve its objective.  And won instead.

My wife:  "Stephen Miller is a putin'bot."

Nicholas Kristof  said in a Times editorial last weekend argued that 2017 was the best year in History.  He's right in a statistical and globalist sense, but it's a very misleading lede.  Short term great, but by any other measure of time, a disaster.
 He gets to the point about two-thirds of the way through, which is that the potential human value present in this moment provides urgency to do something about the threats to it.
He's right, but our focus should be on addressing the "mortal threats" he mentions briefly.

Josh Marshall had it right:  It just doesn't matter whether Trump is mentally ill--if there were any doubt.
Here's a quote I liked from a Washington Post update this morning:

He's one of multiple Trump picks who couldn't pass muster with a GOP-controlled Senate, yet continues to wield immense authority within the government. 

--James Hohmann, "The Daily 202", Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2018, talking about Sam Clovis, who was humiliatingly recalled from a nomination for the US Dept. of Agriculture.   I like the phrase "multiple Trump picks" and variations of it:  "multiple Trump pricks", "multiple pump tricks"

An interesting question from the respected Quinnipiac polling agency asked respondents to give him a grade from A to F, a much better one than whether someone approves of him or feels we're on the right track:  much more information value.  This poll, before the "shithole" comment had 39% grade him an 'F', then 17% a D, only 11% a C, 16% a B, and 16% an A.  (Clearly the 'I don't know/No answer' portion is omitted from their quote.)  My calculation of their average is a 74, right in the middle of the 'D' range.

If we consider our expectations about a Trump presidency after Election Night, I would agree with this rating:  he hasn't gotten us into a new stupid war--yet.

I remember feeling somewhat similarly about Dubya in mid-2001 (actually writing it--probably in eRaider.com)  The difference is that those who would've given Dubya an F would probably only grade him in the 60-75 range, while Trump is probably distributed uniformly over the 0-75 range.  Actually, that's very generous to him, as is the 60 average I gave him in coming up with the 74 average:  I would personally give him an overall rating (not compared to my expectations) to be about a 17.+

"Archie Bunker with a twitter feed"  - Josh  on Don Lemon, CNN +Obama would probably be about a 93--topic for another day, based on a measure that is not subjected to my interest but to humanity's, and to the notion of a free, somewhat democratic America's as a key factor in our species' continued viability.) The randomness of Trump's behavior is wholly negative from the point of view of the world, but not entirely so from the American one (first, if only narrowly or currently so).

2017: My Year in Songs

My New Years Eve was spent at home:  we were working on a plan to go to see Murder by Death downtown, but as the freeze deepened, we made a late decision to bag it.   The highlight of the evening was the performance by Keith Urban (yes, Nicole Kidman's husband) at a Nashville Eve rally, playing--basically solo guitar--and singing trademark songs from among the musicians who died in 2017.  It included a verse and chorus or two from--among others--Chris Cornell (of Soundgarden), Glenn Campbell, Chuck Berry, and finished with a performance of Tom Petty's "Free Fallin'".

I should have mentioned Petty's passing earlier, but I can't count myself among his foremost fans.  I don't think I ever purchased a product just of Petty and/or his Heartbreakers, nor did I attend any concerts:  for example, this year at New Orleans' JazzFest I watched Lorde, though Petty was playing at the other end of the Fairgrounds.  With hindsight, I'd have to say that was an error, though it's not a criticism of Lorde:  she may well have multiple decades of performing ahead of her, while Petty had barely a season.

I always respected his music, though.  He's a genuine American rocker of merit.  As a keyboard maven, I loved how well much of Petty's music featured Benmont Tench.  My favorite song was the one which I would say initially brought him into the big time, "Refugee".  It doesn't get much play anymore, as it's kinda politically incorrect both toward the object of his scorn and to impoverished foreigners, but I love the edgy energy in it.  I would also mention "Breakdown", "The Waiting", "Even the Losers', "Runnin' Down a Dream", and "Listen to Her Heart". 

 "Where's the Revolution?"-- Depeche Mode
You see the theme, though from Tom Petty's music:  modern American male angst.  He's dealing with interpersonal relations, performing the essential popular music functions of expressing empathy and providing consolation, but he's not making a statement of any kind.

There was too much of that in 2017; I am a little disappointed, but I think to some extent the shock of the 2016 election and what it means to us all has been a little hard to process.  Rock musicians' minds were elsewhere, not paying much attention, and for the most part haven't snapped to it yet.  I'm not even sure it will happen in 2018, but I feel confident the rage (or counter-rage, if you prefer) will rise by 2020.  I would guess the one most likely to voice it is Bruce Springsteen, but we shall see--maybe Bob Dylan's songwriting brain hasn't given up the ghost yet.  Of course, it took rap no time at all to react, in variously virulent and vicious voice.

Yes, veteran Brit rockers Depeche Mode did put out and promote a song with the above subtitle.  The style was quite typical, the radical, provocative words clearly enunciated (as opposed to the usual mumbling or vocal distortions all too present in all popular music genres these days, though the lyrics now can easily be found by the curious on the Internet); however, I don't think D.Mode ever got their answer, and I'm not too many heard the question.

A couple of honorable mentions from foreign bands that can afford to take a stand:  Arcade Fire--their new album "Everything Now" continues the social commentary, disguised in disco format, with the title song and with "Creature Comfort", but that's both Canadian and not really new content from them.  Still much appreciated.   U2's new album is more topical than their previous one and has some oblique references to the fact that the nature of this republic today is contrary to their concept of America.  Again, foreign and not a new theme for them.

What was a little more surprising to me was the lyric to the Killers' "Run for Cover", as that all-American band is among the last I would look to for political commentary.    It includes the lines, "It's even worse when the dirtbag's famous" and "he's fake news".  But, unfortunately, Brandon Flowers does not seem to be referring directly to Trump but seems to be voicing the complaint of a guy whose girlfriend is ditching him for a Trump voter.  Still, some political conscience from a rock band.

Radio, Radio
I got a car this year with Sirius XM, and it has no CD player!  As a result, I have been listening to digitized radio a lot this year.  Here are my top 10 stations (I'm going with the minimal rental level, but I am not just grifting off their free feed):
10.  ESPN Radio
9.  CNN
8. Deep Tracks (SXM #28) - offbeat playlist of obscure cuts from whenever and whoever
7. 820 am - I'm getting NorMan Goldman better than ever. No FM interference from the local Polish station on this feed.
6. Lithium - grunge and near-grunge
5. Classic Vinyl--'60's and '70's, good stuff only; way better than the 80's based Classic Rewind (the cassette period), which plays too much bad Zeppelin.
4. 101.1 FM
3. 93.1 FM -- my Chicago rock stations; gotta set the radio to these when I go in the parking garage.
2. altNation - yes, my chosen genre
1. Spectrum - goes across it; past and present, mostly good selections

And please don't waste your effort by advising me to go with some ipod or Apple tunes or Spotify or Pandora, etc.  Don't need it, not buying it.

(Additional note--1/11/18:  I did this list spontaneously, without reference to my Sirius dial, and butchered it somewhat.  I forgot to include '80's New Wave station '1st wave' (belongs between #4 and 5 above), and Billy Preston (The Beatles--belongs between #8 and 7, as it works--sometimes--in variably-sized doses, but sometimes is impossible), but I should've had NBA and MLB Radio paired--'clubbed', as some might say--with #10, which I mislabeled, and probably should've found a mention for NPR and some of the jazz stations--disappointingly mainstream--as also mentioned. ) 

My Top 5 Songs of 2017, with some Additional Notes (and links to them)

5) "Feel It Still" - Portugal. The Man.  Revival music--I prefer that to "throwback"--is doing just fine, though Amy Winehouse is gone and Adele dormant.   This group achieved overnight success after 20 years of effort.  I mention also New Orleans Revivalists' "Wish I Knew You" and Rag 'n' Bone Man's "Human".  But 'Feel It Still" is something special, and I like the reminder that there was once a 1966 (or was it 1986?)

4) "Dear Life" - Beck.  The Grammys are hard to figure.  Back in the '70's and '80's, they were so good at recognizing the value of the big acts after they reached their peak.  Now that they are finally cottoning onto rap, it makes me wonder what's the next big thing.  In the case of Beck, they gave him the album of the year for the wrong album for his unexciting product "Morning Phase", then two years later he puts out "Colors", which brings back the verve and variety of his early work, with some lyrics that actually tend toward intelligible meaning this time around (though the wordplay is no less).  The best song is "Dreams", but that came out two years ago.  This song is a very respectable one, though; it's title is a play on the cliche phrase "holding on for dear life".  Beck asks, musically, Why?

3. "No Roots", Alice Merton.  Not a rebellion against roots music.  Really, it does have a rootsy feel, but it's  self-referencing metaphor.  She's a young woman has lived the itinerant life of which she sings, or so she says.  Not to be tokenist, but I should also cite 2017 efforts from some other rising young women of alternative rock, such as Lana del Rey, Lorde, and Julia Michaels.

2. Napalm, Conor Oberst.   The prolific transplanted Nebraskan lives at the conjunction of rock, folk, and country, and in his current format mixes styles from song to song.  On 2017's "Salutations" album, the best song for my money is this anarchist chika-chika rocker which seems like somewhat overt homage to Bob Dylan in his "Rainy Day Women" period:  full of fun and meanness both, ready for trouble.  His lyrics are pushing boundaries but he admits he's "still on the fence":  basically, his political instinct centers around trusting none of them.

1) The System Only Dreams in Total Darkness, The National.  The initial appeal was the musical composition, with some interesting tone sequences, a very strange guitar lick repeated every so often, and a canonical guitar solo I would describe as thrilling.  The lyrics are somewhat impenetrable, especially the title, but seem to be about a deep interpersonal crisis of some kind, delivered convincingly.  I've heard it many times, and it always provides an emotional lift. At the end of the day, though, to quote the song, "I can't explain it...ah...any other/Any other way..."   and that is why we need music, after all.

Honorable Alt-Mention:  2017 was also a good year for alt-J, LCD Soundsystem, 
War on Drugs, Cage the Elephant, and Spoon.