A few random thoughts at this critical moment before the debate.

1. Tim Kaine was actually quite effective in setting up the post debate spin.  While Pence had good Republican hair and was quite smooth, Kaine succeeded in forcing Pence to either not defend Trump at all, or look ridiculous in stating that Trump had never said what in fact Trump had said, on video no less.
2. Trump is undisciplined.  It was inevitable in this modern world where every cell phone can become a hot mike or in fact a video camera, that a video like Friday’s “grab them by the pussy” would come out.  This is also the pitfall of nominating a first time politician. If Trump had run for elective office before (even if he lost) this would have surfaced back then.  Republican lack of vetting of their own nominee by his primary challengers is coming home to roost.
3. There will likely be more video and audio revelations.  My only question is whether these  revelations are already known to the Clinton campaign or whether they will be spontaneous under the control only of those who hold the tapes.
4. Trump’s only hope for damage mitigation here was a complete apology.  Instead he is attacking Bill Clinton for his prior indiscretions.  This is a poor response; it will not play well with what’s left of the persuadable center.
5. The abandonment of Trump by elected Republicans could lead to a complete collapse at both the Presidential and Congressional (House and Senate) levels.  Yesterday Rep. Heck, running for Senate in Nevada, abandoned Trump and then he (Rep. Heck) was booed at a his own rally.
6. If Clinton defeats Trump by 8 or more percentage points, the House would be in play.
7. Throughout the general election, my prediction has been a Clinton win somewhere between  Obama’s two margins of victory– a 4 to 8 percentage point win.  I’m figuring more like 8 right now.
8. I expect Democrats to take the Senate.  They will probably win nearly all of the close races on election day.
9. While a double digit HRC victory margin is possible, there is also the possibility that voters wanting to make a protest will go to Stein or Johnson, now without fear that Trump could win.  In the latter scenario, I have not thought through the implications for congressional races, but it’s likely not as good for the Democrats as the former scenario.
10.  I don’t think Trump will drop out.  There is no way for Republicans to dump him unless he leaves voluntarily.  Even if does withdraw, there would be no Republican unity behind the “replacement” ticket, most likely with Pence on top.
11. I think we are only talking about the margin of the Clinton victory.  I just can’t see a way for Clinton to lose this election.  She’s’ been in the public eye for so long, I just can’t imagine there is some devastating skeleton that would make her vulnerable to a candidate as weak and flawed as Trump.
12. I expect Clinton to be very prepared for Trump’s attacks at tonight’s debate.
13. I don’t know what to expect from Trump, but it will probably be either bad or terrible for his electoral prospects.  A miracle apology that helps him?  Maybe, but I just don’t see it.

A few random thoughts on the state of the election.

Obviously Clinton did very well in the debate.  Mrs. Center Left and I both thought she was getting under his skin after just 15 minutes.  I want to credit Clinton for doing a great job.  She didn’t just let Trump be himself.  She provoked him. And we he got hot and showed his poor temperament, she brilliantly let him interrupt without stopping her speech most of the time.  Obviously she was pleased to see him over reacting.  But if every time he interrupted, she just stopped talking, she would have looked weak.  I think she handled it perfectly.

The trap her team set with Alicia Machado worked perfectly. Trump took the bait and couldn’t let go all week.  He was still tweeting insults about Machado at 3:00 a.m. four days later.  He wasted several days of campaign time. As with the Khans, everyone who is not an extreme Republican partisan (or a racist, or nationalist) can see that Trump is easily baited, undisciplined, and unfit to be President.

At a minimum, the partial release of his taxes from 1995 noting his loss of $900 million and that he probably paid no taxes for 18 years, takes him off message, reinforces his lack of transparency, raises questions for the media, and wastes his campaign days. I don’t actually think the not paying taxes angle hurts him all that much.  Lots of conservatives and some centrist voters believe taxes are too high, and government is wasteful.  But to the extent the narrative can be spun toward the rigged system where the rich who lose money get some type of bailout (in this case likely from investors in a new public company) and tax relief, while the middle class just loses, could hurt him a lot.  Plus it begs the question of how did you lose $900 million anyway?  Not such brilliant business man after all.  So far, his defense is that he’s smart to avoid paying taxes, and he’s the only one who knows how to fix the tax system. This is a weak defense.  I expect the tax issue to be a negative for at least another week.

Looking forward to the VP debate.

 

 

Just read Josh Marshall. I add very little.  But that won’t stop me from doing some addition.  Josh has a good post of the state of the race.  Link:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-great-is-it-close-debate

Nate Silver’s model has the Clinton likelihood of victory back below 60 percent.  His model uses a combination of state and national polling.  It’s quite sensitive to the latest polling.  Sam Wang at the Princeton Election Consortium uses state polls only.  His model is less sensitive, and he gives Clinton a 73 to 82 percent chance of winning.  I tend to be more with Sam but not necessarily for the same reasons. My reasons for thinking Clinton will win are:

1. Trump never quite pulls ahead; he just gets close. Clinton tends to move back to a lead of about 4 percent.

2. Usually the candidate who has generally led the race most of the time post convention, even if the margin is modest, is the winner.

3. Clinton’s ground game should add a point or two.

4.A majority believes Trump is unfit and unqualified to be President regardless of policy.  Trump’s only chance is to win with a plurality.  I think Clinton has more room to gain from undecided voters or those voting for the third party candidates.  Ed Kilgore has a nice piece noting that many millennials think Clinton may be inevitable, thus comfortable making a 3rd party protest vote. On election eve, voters will know what is at stake.  While some may choose a protest vote, very few voters will do that under the illusion that his or her vote doesn’t  matter.

5. As I have said before, the electorate will get it right one more time.

I agree with Josh Marshall’s closing thought: “My own hunch is that that line separating the two candidates is likely more durable than some suspect. But that’s just my own hunch.”

I am very interested in the debate tomorrow.  I expect that Trump will try to play it conservative by not attacking and just appearing “Presidential” on the same stage.  I don’t think he can do it.  It’s just not his nature.  We shall see.  Oh and Josh Marshall has it all for you at:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-few-thoughts-on-the-debate

 

 

Polls show a tightening race for President. The Nate Silver model has her chances down to 60 percent. Readers, friends, and family members (pretending there is a difference) ask me if I am worried. Well, even a small chance of a very bad thing can be something to worry about. But no, I remain confident the Clinton will win.

The primary reason I believe Clinton will win is that the American electorate has made a rational choice in every election since WWII. I may not agree with the choice, but for each election the electorate made a sensible choice about whether it was time to change or maintain the status quo. (I voted for Carter in 1980, but with unemployment and inflation high and hostages in Iran, the electorate chose change in a former conservative governor from California.  That’s a rational decision.)

So was Bush defeating Gore rational in 2000?  Can’t the electorate be manipulated by campaign gurus like Carl Rove, with amplification by Fox News? Well,  2000 was a close call.  The economy was still okay, but the stock market had dropped a lot in early 2000. (The  Dot-com bust, remember.). Bush was in his second term as Governor of TX.  As the son of the former President, voters could expect reasonable appointments and governance. Cheney was thought of as competent moderate at that time.  (He had been Ford’s chief of staff.) While the Lewinsky scandal did not destroy President Clinton’s popularity, you can understand why some voters wanted to make a change.  A credible, though very modest case for change, a credible candidate, and a good campaign still needed a flawed ballot design in FL to win the election.  And Bush did not win the popular vote.

Trump is no Bush.  Rove/ Ailes/ whoever are working with a toxic substance. The electorate understands Trump is not qualified to be President.  Moreover, the commerce department reported median income growth in 2015 of over 5%, the best figure in decades.  The case for change is not there.

So why isn’t Clinton further ahead? She is very unpopular too.  Some (most?) of the criticism of her is unfair.  Regardless, the baggage is there.  When busy voters are deciding whether to answer the phone during a bad week or two for her while the campaign focus has been away from Trump, you can see why her numbers might fade a bit.  The real key is shifting the focus back to Trump.

Whenever Trump is the focus, his numbers drop.  The debates will put focus back on Trump.  Some new stories about his business dealings abroad and his foundation are likely to get more attention.  The media likes a close race.  My hunch is coverage will move back toward Trump with the polls so close.  Plus the Clinton campaign can help themselves by baiting him into spouting off.

My hunch is that Clinton will slightly out preform her polls.(1-2 percent better).  She has a ground game designed to find and get her marginal voters to the polls (or vote by mail).  Trump does not have this.  I still believe the actual voters will make the right call that the case for change is weak and Trump is unqualified and dangerous.  I think the 3rd party candidate vote will fade some, raising Clinton’s margin.

Could I be wrong?  Could voters decide to take their anti-Trump vote to 3rd party candidates, allowing Trump to win with just a plurality?  Yes I could be wrong.  However,  I trust the voters to get this right.  They always have.  I will be very surprised if they don’t get it right one more time with so much on the line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back in September 2000, Will Saletan of Slate wrote that “Bush was toast” a little prematurely.  He later regretted using that word and instead used the term warm bread in his own self correcting piece.  So to not jinx things, I’ll say warm bread rather than something that rhymes with coast.   Up to now I’ve believed that Clinton would win and Trump would lose. Mentally, I had Clinton’s chances at about 80 percent. This morning it moves up to more like 98 percent. Let me explain first what I had been thinking, and then what changed this morning.

I believe that most elections are logical choices by the voters.  There is often a strong  case for continuation (1984, 1988, 1996), or a strong case for change (1980,1992, 2008), or a close call (2000, 2004, and 2012).  In the strong cases, things like campaign tactics don’t matter very much.  The underlying conditions of peace and prosperity (or their opposites) overdetermine the election.  In close calls where there is a weak but still plausible case for change, then tactics and campaigns matter.

The underlying conditions this year suggest a weak to modest case for continuation, that is a bit stronger than the case for change.  Unemployment, crime, and inflation are all low, the stock market is near it’s all time high, and the country is at peace. Yet income growth has been weak and terrorism abroad, and to a lesser extent at home, leaves folks feeling a little uneasy.  A weak case for continuation in my opinion, but an even weaker case for change.  So I would have expected a close election, especially with no incumbent President on the ballot.  Nate Silver’s polls plus model, which includes fundamentals, sees it similarly as a close election.  (In contrast the polls only model shows a commanding lead for Clinton).

So in a close election tactics and candidates matter. And Trump is a disastrous candidate.  No impulse control, easily bated, unable to focus, unable to stay on message, no effective campaign tactics, and unable to unite the party. So even if he could make the case for change, voters correctly perceive he does not have the temperament or judgment to be President. He cannot be the change agent even if the case for change could be made.

But all the above has been obvious for several weeks or even months. So what changed for me?  Why have I gone from Trump is likely to lose to almost certainly going to lose.  I’ve been a little slow to realize that Trump just can’t change his stripes.  I had always assumed that on some level his persona was an act, like being on the apprentice.  Trump values winning, and there would be many Republican campaign operatives and politicians offering advice on everything from policy, advertising, and ground game. But even Trump’s desire to win can’t overcome his narcissistic personality that makes him so undisciplined and unable to focus.  Mrs. Center Left realized this long ago.

So my belated realization that there will be no pivot is one reason, I am now even more bullish on Clinton’s prospects. The other is that that the media has turned against him in ways I didn’t realize till this morning.  Ezra Klein has a great piece on this today worth reading in it’s entirety.  Link:

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/16/12484644/media-donald-trump

Most candidates can get away with exaggerations and even largely misleading statements. There only has to be some element of what Steven Colbert calls “truthiness” for the media to take a he said/ she said approach.   But Trump repeatedly can’t even do a little truthiness, so the media calls him on it.  From Klien quoting James Fallows:

“The things Trump says are demonstrably false in a way that’s abnormal for politicians,” says the Atlantic’s James Fallows, who wrote the book Why Americans Hate the Media. “When he says he got a letter from the NFL on the debates and then the NFL says, ‘no, he didn’t,’ it emboldens the media to treat him in a different way.”

But the capper for me was a screen shot from CNN.  With Trump in the center of the picture, the screen below reads:

Trump Calls Obama Founder of Isis (He’s not.) Fact check: al-Baghdadi founded Isis

I don’t watch cable news, but if the media is calling Trump out for his daily lies, there is no hope for him.  Klein’s piece explains in more detail why the media has turned on Trump (fear of restricting press if he became President and the way his racism offends their cosmopolitan sensibility).  I expect this will continue.  This for me is an unanticipated early benefit of what I called the “denunciation phase” of the campaign whereby newspapers would denounce Trump in unusually harsh terms, with echoes from some Republican commentators.  This instant fact check (Trump’s statement is false) is related to that same concept of denunciation.

I just don’t see how Trump can win.  External events such as terrorism and a market crash might open the door for voters to consider change. But Trump is to undisciplined and patently unqualified to take advantage. Republican elected officials and their institutional money will continue to move away from Trump and focus on down ballot races.  The only question for the Presidential race is the margin of victory.  I’m thinking an 8 to 10 point margin, but even bigger numbers are possible.  I just can’t see a final election closer than Obama’s 4 point win in 2012.

Hope I haven’t jinxed things by mentioning warm bread to soon, but wanted to state where I really think the election stands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some friends and family members know that estimating the electoral college is a hobby of mine.  In 1996, I correctly picked 49 states.  Or stated another way, I correctly picked all 50 and 200K voters in CO got it wrong ;). This was before the era of Nate Silver, but in fact anyone spending an hour looking at state polls could have gotten 45 states correct.  So my 49 in 1996 hardly makes me an expert.

First point, the electoral college only matters if the popular vote spread is less than 3 percent. A candidate winning the popular vote by 3 percent or more will surely win the electoral college, probably with a couple states to spare.

But in a close election it does matter. Although I don’t think the election will be decided by less than 3 percentage points, if it were, the key states are FL, OH, and PA.  The New York Times had an extensive article on this just as I was doing my own thinking last weekend.  If Clinton can win any one of these three states, she will almost certainly win the electoral college. However if Trump can sweep all three, he is likely to win the electoral college.  This is because sweeping all three probably means winning Iowa and New Hampshire as well.  With those additional wins, the only path I can see for Clinton would be to win Arizona or North Carolina. Again, this is unlikely if Trump has won the other states discussed.   Bottom line, Trump needs that clean sweep of all three to win and PA has not gone Republican since 1988 (though it has been close in several elections).

With the latest polling numbers now giving Clinton an average lead of about 8 percentage points, talk of the electoral college key states seems almost silly.  If Clinton wins by 8, her electoral college map would look better than Obama’s in 2008.  For a sneak peak at the potentially bluest map in about 20 years, go to Nate Silver’s model and set the forecast on “nowcast.” This maximizes the impact of the latest polling.  This morning the nowcast shows Clinton winning all the usual swing states plus GA and AZ.  What a pretty map!

While glimpsing that map is fun, I would urge readers not to get too caught up in day-to-day polling changes.  Response rates for polls are very low.  What a poll is really testing is the propensity for respondents to pick up the phone and take the time to share their views.  With the Dem convention featuring so many good speeches favoring Clinton and Trump idiotically confirming everyone’s worst impressions by attacking a gold star family, is it any wonder that Dems were happy to answer pollsters with better number for Hillary? And that Republicans were less likely to answer those phone calls if they were in the random survey?  Larry Sabato of UVA puts it well:

You might ask: What about the wild swings in polling we observe with regularity, most recently after each convention? Some persuasive research has argued that it is explained by variability in the survey response rates of Democrats and Republicans. (See Andrew Gelman, et al., “The Mythical Swing Voter”). That is, short-term swings in candidate preference are caused mainly if not exclusively by variability in partisan response rates. Even small changes in response rates among Democrats and Republicans can produce sizable shifts in candidate support, given the very low overall response rates in most polls.

Clinton is totally dominating the news cycles right now.  This may not always be the case, so I would not be surprised if her average lead drops back to 3 or 4 percent, or possibly even closer for a few days between now and November.  I always go back to 2012 election won by Obama by 4 percent.  Demographics alone suggest if folks voted the same way in 2016, the lead would expand to at least 5 percent.  Given Trump’s now obvious hair trigger temper and obvious unfitness for office, how many former Obama voters can really switch to Trump no matter how badly folks feel about Hillary and her emails?  I just don’t see Trump assembling a winning coalition unless more terrorism causes the electorate to conclude we must have change if we don’t trust the change agent.  Not impossible, but very unlikely.

On the flip side, Trump’s current polling and the fact that local Republican primary campaigns are coming toward the end make it more possible that Republican congressional and senate candidates may soon formally abandon Trump, rather than just “distance” themselves.  If this happens, Trump’s numbers will likely stay at their current terrible levels or get even worse, making a double digit Clinton win possible and maybe even likely.

Bottom line, I expect a Clinton win in the range of Obama’s numbers in 2012 or 2008, with 2008 being the better estimate.  A double digit Clinton win is much more likely than a super close race that Trump manages two win.

Like most all pundits and observers, I believe the Democrats had a much better convention that will allow Hillary to shore up and expand her support.  Trump and the Republicans made several mistakes.  By turning so negative on the state of the country and the world, they forgot to say that they love America.  Moreover, their dark vision of the country is just not consistent with the latest data on crime and the economy.  Finally, Trump saying “I alone” can fix things was big mistake.  An old boss of mine (who worked in politics) used to say there are times for “we” messages and times for “I” messages. But politicians need to be very careful with the “I” messages.  Trump doesn’t know the meaning of careful.

After the Republican convention ended, I believed the Democrats were in a very good position to rebut much of  what had been said.  And indeed they did, with speaker after speaker.  Trump’s focus on “I” left the door open for Hillary to stress the “we” (think it takes a village).  I watched the speeches of both Obama’s, Tim Kaine, and Hillary.  The Obamas were outstanding.  Tim and Hillary were fine.  Hillary did better than I expected.

Perhaps the defining moment may turn out to be the very moving speech of Khazir Khan recounting his muslim son giving his life in service of his men and his country. During his 6 minute speech, Mr. Khan then pressed Trump on his knowledge of the constitution (which of course provides for freedom of religion) and noted that Trump had sacrificed nothing. Trump, unable to control himself, has attacked Khazir and his wife Ghazala.

This is a revealing mistake on so many levels.  It reveals that Trump has no empathy.  It reveals that Trump has no impulse control–he must fight back regardless of who attacked him.  It reveals that he cannot work with political professionals (or advisors of any kind) who would have advised him to either say nothing, or honor the Khan’s sacrifice while softly defending his policies.  It reveals the political stupidity of “all publicity is good publicity.”  Remember, Mr. Khan’s speech was not in prime time.  Not that many Republicans were even aware of the speech.  It was not shown live on FOX.  Now it’s being replayed in both regular and social media. For all these reasons, it reveals why Trump cannot be trusted with the control of nuclear weapons.  Josh Marshall has a complete explanation of Trump’s self-inflicted disaster:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/understanding-the-trump-khan-war

Early post convention polls are moving toward HRC.  I’d wait at least another week or two to draw firm conclusions about exactly where the race stands.  My expectation is that Clinton will move back toward that 4-6 point lead and hold that with some ups and downs over the coming 100 days or so.  But nothing is certain.  In a normal political world, Trump would have now come close to committing political suicide.  But is this a normal world?  Here’s David Brooks with a scary thought:

The Democrats had by far the better of the conventions. But the final and shocking possibility is this: In immediate political terms it may not make a difference.  The Democratic speakers hit doubles, triples and home runs. But the normal rules may no longer apply. The Democrats may have just dominated a game we are no longer playing.

Both conventions featured one grieving parent after another. The fear of violent death is on everybody’s mind — from ISIS, cops, lone sociopaths. The essential contract of society — that if you behave responsibly things will work out — has been severed for many people.

It could be that in this moment of fear, cynicism, anxiety and extreme pessimism, many voters may have decided that civility is a surrender to a rigged system, that optimism is the opiate of the idiots and that humility and gentleness are simply surrendering to the butchers of ISIS. If that’s the case then the throes of a completely new birth are upon us and Trump is a man from the future. If that’s true it’s not just politics that has changed, but the country.

I don’t believe things have changed as much as Mr. Brooks fears.  But probably the only way Trump could win would be if Brooks’ fears turn out to be true.

 

 

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: