Mrs. Center Left and I just finished watching the President’s wonderful speech.  I also thought that Tim Kaine did well earlier tonight introducing himself to the nation.  Two of my favorite writer/thinkers, Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marshall have written similarly about Obama and the moments we live in.  Sullivan notes that Obama has framed  the choice between democracy and tyranny. Quoting the President “We don’t look to be ruled,” and “Democracy is not a spectator sport.”

From Josh Marshall:

…as we listened to Obama speak. He’s less attacking Trump as making him seem small and petty in comparison to the picture of America he’s painting. We heard a lot about how Obama was going to take it to Donald Trump. And he did. But it wasn’t in a way that I would have expected based on those words. It was more organic and sweeping.

I think Obama hit all the points he needed to hit in the pageantry and process of this convention. He summed up his presidency, he knocked Donald Trump, he vouched for Hillary Clinton. But he did something more substantial. I think he captured the reality of the moment, which is a sobering one but also one that is grounding and revivifying because it reminds us who we are. Hopefully it reminds us as a country what we need to do.

Michelle’s speech earlier in the week was also outstanding.  We will miss the Obamas when they leave office.

I choose to believe the positive vision of our country presented by the Obamas and Clintons will carry the day over Trump’s dark vision of a divided country driven by fear.  I hope the polls move in that direction in the coming weeks.

Blogging is meant to be a medium of frequent short posts.  However, my mind does not work at the pace of the blogoshpere. I ponder ideas for a few days before drawing conclusions. By the time I’ve reached a conclusion worth writing about, new events have taken place, and whatever I was prepared to write about has become dated. I’m not sure my thinking/writing style will ever evolve to make me an effective blogger, but this morning I will attempt to catch up on a lot of topics.

The overarching question on many of my friends’ minds is along the lines of “With Trump being so transparently awful, why isn’t Hillary further ahead in the polls?”  Next question is  along the lines of “Trump can’t win, can he?”  I’ll try to deal with aspects of these questions below.

First, Trump is truly awful.  The two latest bits of awfulness are 1) hosting a convention which is criminalizing political difference and 2) undermining our commitment to NATO allies.  Encouraging shouts of “lock her up” during the convention is truly chilling and un-American.  Only in weak democracies do elected officials, and for that matter voters, fear for their safety and liberty if their party does not prevail. Then, in the midst of this crazy convention, Trump has told the New York Times that aiding the Baltic States is conditioned on their “meeting their obligations to us.”  This is crazy talk. The entire purpose of an alliance is to make clear that members will come to the aid of other members in a military crisis.  Is Trump inviting Russia to invade or pressure the NATO allies in eastern Europe?  What’s with all the Putin bromance?  WTF? These are just the two latest examples of why Trump is so transparently unqualified to be President.

Moving on, why isn’t Hilary further ahead?  Well, in a politically divided United States, each party begins with a base of about 45 percent. There aren’t that many persuadable voters. Even conditions suggestive a large electoral victory do not reveal large polling leads anymore. Kevin Drum has a nice recap of polling in 2008, noting that McCain was ahead of Obama in June and again in early September. Remember, the economy was melting down. The case for change was very strong.  Obama was a great campaigner and speaker. We could just as easily ask, why wasn’t Obama further ahead?  Link to Kevin Drum:

motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/no-its-not-astonishing-trump-running-tight-race

Obama went on to win by 7 percentage points, the largest Democratic margin since 1964.  Hilary is not a great politician.  She has neither the charm nor charisma of President Obama or her husband.  She makes unforced errors with the media.  Her speaking tone can be grating.  Nonetheless, her resume as former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State is very strong.  Ultimately I expect that despite her flaws,  voters will see her clearly preferable to Trump.  That’s a key difference between polling and voting.  When a pollster calls, if you have reservations, you can say you are undecided.  In the voting booth, you have to choose, and I expect voters will choose Hillary over Trump by a margin similar to that of Obama in 2008.  (In another post, I hope to talk about how sexism is depressing Hillary’s numbers.)

So can Trump win?  Of course he can in a binary two-party system. Trump begins with a base of about 45 percent, despite his awfulness.  Nate Silver’s model gives him a 40 percent chance of winning, his highest numbers to date. The NYT has a different model giving him just a 25 percent chance.  Betting markets give him a 30 percent chance.  Personally, I believe Trump’s chances are no better than 30 percent.  But 30 percent is very scary.

So what’s going to happen?  I think Hillary will slowly pull away from Trump in the polls, but will never have a consistent lead of more than 5 or 6 percentage points, and might even experience several dips where her lead is minimal.  Ultimately, I expect that her final margin of victory will be by about 7 percentage points.  Why do I believe this? The R Convention has not achieved the typical goal of unifying the party or showcasing a candidate’s ability to lead and effectively message his or her goals. I haven’t watched much of the convention, but seeing Ted Cruz tell the delegates to vote their conscience rather than endorse Trump, followed by audible booing, demonstrates there is no unity in Republican land.

Next, I believe the Democratic Convention will demonstrate unity.  Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama and former President Clinton will present a strong unified message in favor of Hillary Clinton as our next President.  Speakers will be well positioned to rebut much of what has been said at the Republican Convention.  Criminalizing political different is not the American way.  Conditions are good by historical standards. Inflation, unemployment, and crime rates are all low.  Job growth under Obama far outpaced that of George Bush. The case for stay the course is strong, and I expect the Democrats to make that case effectively.  The few persuadable voters and skeptical Bernie supporters will begin moving toward Hillary.

Finally, any analysis of the 2016 election requires looking at 2012. Since 2012, the electorate has gotten less white and younger.  Trump has to improve on Romney’s numbers with non-white and younger voters. There is no evidence in the polling that he has done so.

I could go on about Hillary raising more money and having a stronger ground game (neither of which are reflected in current polling). I could also add that stories of individuals screwed over by Trump business deals will make there way into the campaign narrate.   The final plus for Hillary is what I will call the “condemnation phase” of the campaign.  In early October, major newspaper editorials will be framing endorsements of Hillary Clinton with extreme denunciations of everything Trump stands for personally and politically.  These statements will be echoed in Hillary’s advertising.  And even some conservatives (George Will, Ross Douthat, David Frum) will join in the denunciation of Trump.

So why do I worry?  Why don’t I think Hillary’s chances are closer to 90 percent?  Because everything I’v written above is from a historical perspective.  Could there be a moment where years of Republican obstruction have so decayed confidence in government’s ability to do anything that the electorate decides to go in a totally different direction, moving toward authoritarianism? Could fear of terrorism push the electorate over the edge?  I don’t think so, but can’t rule it out.  I’ll close with a quote from Josh Marshall:

This is Trump. His convention would be his presidency – entertaining and hilarious if he weren’t also a live wire against the fumy gasoline can set against our national home. It is quite literally a terrifying prospect. He’s quite likely to lose his quest for the presidency. But he might not. He’s that close to the unimaginable. And he’s brought almost an entire political party along with him. We will be blessed if we can escape this with no more harm.

 

 

Been meaning to post about this.  The following is from Politico last week:

Yesterday, Mrs. Center Left noted that we are in midst of major social change and that may be a big part of why our society and politics are so polarized. In a similar vein, Josh Marshall has a very long column on change in our society, specifically the further decline of “white America”  His thoughts on this change and and how Trump has seized the moment and played to the minority of our society that feels that “white America is dying or being taken away.”  As a white male, Josh writes many of my own thoughts in wake of the Dallas police shooting.  Like me, Josh does not see the country falling apart like 1968.  The police were there to protect the protesters.  The protest leaders condemned the violence agains the police.  His entire piece is worth reading.  Here’s a link: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/not-1968-but

And I will quote extensively.  First he compares the present to 1968, referencing an equally good column by Jonathan Chait:

By so many measures – civil disorder, political breakdown, assassinations, death tolls, the US Army operating in major American cities – there is truly no comparing that era in our country’s history with today. As Jon Chait argues here, there is an underlying societal unity, prosperity and consensus which the headlines, political and cultural polarization and atrocities obscure. And yet, I don’t think we can quite,entirely close the book on the analogy.

Josh then goes on to discuss white identity and the pace of cultural change.  His thoughts on the pace are in line  with the very wise Mrs. Center Left:

Like I am, Chait is a white man in his 40s who has been given much of the best of what our society has to offer. He also does not politically identify with his whiteness. This is no knock on Chait, who is a friend. All of these apply entirely to me as well. Indeed, when I see these things, part of me thinks, how can everything be coming apart when there’s so much that is going so well?

The improvement and all that is good is all right there to see. I see it. And yet revolutions mostly tend to occur not when things are dire but when they’re improving. Just not fast enough. The phenomenon of revolutions or protest when change is not keeping pace with rising expectations is a well-known one in sociology and political science.

Then Josh turns to the loss of white privilege, why many of us are happy to embrace that, while others fight it by turning to Trump:

 At a traffic stop, I’m white, no matter what my politics, empathy, awareness of this reality or that. I’m white, period. My kids are white too. And the metaphoric traffic stop plays out in numerous other social situations. That’s a layer of protection I carry around me no matter what. It inevitably shapes what I see when I watch these horrific videos – the mix of outrage or anger or fear. I feel a lot of outrage and a lot of anger but I don’t feel much fear because, frankly, I’m pretty sure nothing like that is going to happen to me. All of which is a protracted way of saying I don’t think I can quite know what year it is for my black brothers and sisters watching those videos.

Why is Donald Trump the presidential nominee of a major political party? As that famous Simpson’s line put it about Fox News, Not Racist but #1 Among Racists! The KKK and “white nationalists” say they feel like the tide is turning in their direction for the first time in decades. Perhaps in spite of himself, but even so Trump is re-normalizing the old anti-semitism that had seemed entirely written out of acceptable public life in America. Not ‘anti-Semitism’ as an attack phrase against people who don’t support Israel enough. But real anti-Semitism with global Jewish cabals, hook-nosed cartoons, jokes about ovens and all the rest.

None of this is normal. It requires an explanation.

There are numerous roots of Trumpism, some deep-seated, others entirely contingent. They include economic grievances which are legitimate and real. Yet Trump might plausibly, if not necessarily, be described as a madman. The fact that the general election version of his campaign (which has to the surprise of many been even more outrageous and transgressive than the primary version) struggles to getbelow 40% in the polls is to a degree a measure of the degree of political polarization in the country – fertile and disquieting ground for another pots. But the overriding drive of Trumpism is that a substantial minority of our fellow citizens believes their country, white America, is dying or being taken away from them. This is rooted in the rising demands of African-Americans, tens of millions of new Americans and now their children from Latin America and other parts of the world, and newcomers with a religion that to many signifies alienness, violence and threat.

And here’s what many Trump voters feel and see:

But we can’t understand this phenomenon unless we understand that from a certain perspective what they fear or are angry about is true. The America in which whites made up the vast majority of citizens and held a monopoly on political power not simply because of racism but, in most parts of the country, by the fact of numerical majorities is unambiguously coming to an end. You see it in everything from birtherism, to opiate death rates to a constant theme of our politics. Is this a threat or a death? I’m entirely untroubled by this fact. Indeed, I welcome it, as do millions and millions of Americans. But there are millions of Americans who do not. You can’t be an observer of contemporary American politics and not see that very clearly.

Trump has trapped into those fearing the loss of “white America” with explicit language rather than the code used by his Republican rivals.  While it worked in the primary process, it will not work, and is not working in the general election.  But Trump’s defeat is not going to end this divisiveness.  I’m hopeful that relatively soon from a historical perspective, (a decade or two?), American society will evolve to a point where Trump like candidates can only attract a tiny fringe element of the electorate.  May it be even sooner than that.

This has been a confusing post to write with so much quoting of Josh.  Bottom line, Trump will be defeated. But I fear the defeat of Trumpism and its ugliness within American society will take longer, likely longer than the Presidency of Hillary Clinton.

 

Most readers know that I am a big fan of Nate Silver and his 538 website.  He does great analytical work in a transparent and thoughtful manner.  I’ve been waiting for his Presidential Election Model this year.  Well, now it’s here. Link:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=navlink

It currently gives Hillary a 78 percent chance of winning in November.  That sounds about right to me. Hillary is a strong favorite despite her rather high unfavorables. But in a two-party system, there is always a chance that even a nominee as weak and flawed as Trump could win.  22 percent sounds about right for that.

A few notes on Nate’s model.

One thing that surprised me was that Hillary has a greater chance of winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college (4.2 percent) than Trump doing the same (0.9 percent).  This was not the case in 2012.  Under uniform swing assumptions, Obama could have one the electoral college in 2012 with less than a majority of the popular vote. I hope Nate will explain why.  My hunch is that Trump’s weakness with Latino voters means he is wasting less votes in places like Texas and Arizona. Perhaps, if he is able to eek out wins in PA, OH, and FL, he might be able to win the electoral college while Hillary wastes votes in NY, CA, and IL.

Nate’s model give Hillary a 31 percent chance of a double digit victory, which would be the largest winning margin for a Democrat since LBJ.  The chance of a Trump landslide is just 2 percent.

My own hunch is that a solid Clinton win, at least the size of the Obama 7 point margin in 2008, is the most likely outcome.  Here are ten reasons why I think Clinton will win by a comfortable margin.

1. Trump has no experience and his brash, racist, sexist statements offend a majority of the electorate.
2. His inexperience and out of control personality make it difficult for persuadable voters to see him as someone who could be trusted in a crisis. (A crisis would normally be helpful to the out-party candidate, but that’s probably not the case this year–I’m thinking of Orlando.)
3. Trump’s campaign has poor fundraising.
4. Trump’s organization is poor.
5. Hillary fundraising and organization are strong.  She inherits some of this from Obama.
6. President Obama’s approval rating is above 50 percent and rising.
7. President Obama will campaign for Hillary. So will other progressives like Elizabeth Warren.
8. The overall direction of the country is okay.  Hillary running as Obama’s successor is the right fit for this election.
9. Despite her unfavorable polling, the Clintons are successful politicians and ultimately persuadable voters will trust Hillary (along with Bill) to run the country.
10. There are some strong Republican voters with manners and decency that will not be able to bring themselves to vote for Trump.  (I’m thinking married Republican suburban women who do not want their children to see Trump as their President.  Also a few ideological purists like David Frum or George Will.)

All of the above, along with Nate’s model, say that Hillary will win comfortably.  But I’m not smug.  Things can change. Like me, Kevin Drum thinks Hillary will win. But he sees (and I see as well) how Trump could win:

“In Britain, cultural resentments won out over stability. Can Donald Trump create the same result here?”

Sure. The odds may be against it, but of course Trump can win in November. Let’s set the stage with the observation that both candidates start with about 45 percent support. Like it or not, that’s where we are right now. Republicans could nominate Donald Duck and he’d start off with 45 percent support. Ditto for Democrats. That said, here’s the most likely path to a Trump victory:

1. Trump gets smart and dials back the cretinism a bit. It wouldn’t take long for the #NeverTrumpers to fall in line. The key tells would be statements like “He seems to be finally growing into his role,” or “He’s right that we can’t afford three or four Hillary nominees to the Supreme Court.” A few weeks after you hear stuff like this, #NeverTrump will be relegated to the ash heap of history.
2. Bernie Sanders remains bitter and fails to rally his troops, who remain convinced that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, corporate shill. So they stay home in a funk instead of working to defeat Trump.
3. The media continues its practice of giving Trump air time to spread wild lies whenever he wants. This is fairly likely since they still haven’t internalized the corollary to the Lesley Stahl lesson: fact checks don’t matter. Only the loud, confident assertion matters.
4. Hillary’s email troubles don’t get resolved and continue to dog her throughout the campaign.

None of this relies on any kind of big external event, like a terrorist attack or an economic plunge. It just relies on Trump getting a little smarter and then a few things going his way. It could happen here.

As Kevin and Nate would say, the odds are against a Trump victory.  But it’s still possible.