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.

 

It’s not what you think.

Last night I dreamt that I was playing craps at Trump-owned casino.  I had a good long shoot (got to keep rolling the dice as I avoided a seven and made a few points). After making point, I then rolled a seven. (This is a good result at this time in the game.)  However, my pass line bet was not paid.  I asked why not, and the Donald himself appeared and said my bet was incorrectly placed on the table, and he would not pay it.  I insisted he was wrong and the video tape would show it in the correct position.  He said he didn’t care wasn’t going to pay.  At this point I grabbed him by the back of his head and repeatedly slammed his face into the craps table with as much strength as I could muster.  Instead of recoiling in pain, his head kept bouncing back up, and he kept insisting he would not pay my bet with that same shit-eating grin on his face. In my dream, the perceived force with which I slammed his head down should have bloodied him, if not killed him, but every time his head just popped back up with only a few orange hairs out of place. I was incredulous that he was not in pain and continuing not to pay my bet.  I kept expecting him to say “your fired” but instead he just said “it’s my casino and I don’t’ have to pay you.”  That’s all I can remember.

Been real busy for the past few weeks. Been thinking a lot, but not making time to post.   So hear a few random thoughts.

I have not been that concerned about Trump’s recent rise in the polls (which now appears to be reversing).  There is typically a small bump for a nominee once his or her nomination is secured.  This is magnified when the other party’s nomination has not been settled, as is the case this year.

I am a little concerned about the weak jobs report last week.  Economic uncertainty will not help Clinton’s chances. Just one or two bad jobs reports does not mean there will be a recession, but I’m more unnerved by this development than the polls.

I think Hillary attack along the lines that Trump is unfit temperamentally to be President has been effective.  Not only is it obviously true to almost everyone except extreme Republican partisans, Trump’s sputtering over the top responses only strengthen the argument.  I can see this type of argument working in the debates. Trump makes some thundering attack.  Hillary can just look over at him and say when your done sputtering, I’ll be happy to respond to that.

I think Hillary will win the CA primary today.  No secret sauce or math.  Just my hunch.

I hope Bernie will endorse Hillary soon (this week would be great).  There will be a lot of pressure on him to do so from folks like President Obama and Elizabeth Warren.  Nonetheless, I think there is still a chance he will drag this out till the convention.

Hopefully more blogging in June.

Been meaning to blog about many things. Sorry for talking too long.  Here’s a few questions and even fewer answers.  1. Why do most Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction when in fact the nation is at peace and prosperity is rebuilding?  2. Why Trump’s unanticipated dominance of the Republican primary process is unlikely to repeat itself in the general election.  3. What do Trump’s supporter think will improve if he gets into office?

On number 1, Mrs. Center Left and I have talked a great deal.  We both believe it’s a sense of lack of security.  Twenty or thirty years ago most people believed that the company they were working for would be around for decades, even if they themselves moved onto something different.  That’s much less the case today.  Blockbuster Video gave way to Netflix and Red Box. Will those give way to Amazon? Outside of government, the life cycle of jobs is now much shorter.  Stated differently, twenty or thirty years ago a good job and house by the time you were in your mid thirties offered a stronger sense of security that it does today.  We also think that social media tends to reinforce the mistaken view that most people are happy, thus creating a weird kind of envy that can lead to pessimism.  Finally terrorism, though extremely rare, is very unsettling, again hurting our sense of security.

Greg Easterbrook has a great take on this issue.  I’ll quote extensively:

Presidential contenders are hardly alone in such bleak views. An April Gallup poll found that only 26 percent of Americans call themselves “satisfied” with “the way things are going” in the United States. It’s been this way for a while: January 2004, during the George W. Bush administration, was the last time a majority told Gallup they felt good about the nation’s course.

Yet a glance out the window shows blue sky. There are troubling issues, including the horror of mass shootings, but most American social indicators have been positive at least for years, in many cases for decades. The country is, on the whole, in the best shape it’s ever been in. So what explains all the bad vibes?

Social media and cable news, which highlight scare stories and overstate anger, bear part of the blame. So does the long-running decline in respect for the clergy, the news media, the courts and other institutions. The Republican Party’s strange insistence on disparaging the United States doesn’t help, either.

But the core reason for the disconnect between the nation’s pretty-good condition and the gloomy conventional wisdom is that optimism itself has stopped being respectable. Pessimism is now the mainstream, with optimists viewed as Pollyannas. If you don’t think everything is awful, you don’t understand the situation!

Our problems are not as bad as we think:

 

It’s easy to forget the sentence bolded above, given the way the media covers terrorism.  I think the idea that America’s problems are the next challenge to be solved is a good way to think about the future. Easterbrook continues:

Pessimists think in terms of rear-guard actions to turn back the clock. Optimists understand that where the nation has faults, it’s time to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

The lack of optimism in contemporary liberal and centrist thinking opens the door to Trump-style demagogy, since if the country really is going to hell, we do indeed need walls. And because optimism has lost its standing in American public opinion, past reforms — among them environmental protection, anti-discrimination initiatives, income security for seniors, auto and aviation safety, interconnected global economics, improved policing and yes, Obamacare — don’t get credit for the good they have accomplished.

This lack of optimism in our collective thinking and our politics is indeed a problem. Hopefully soon I can write more about this and the other questions.

Here’s Elizabeth Warren on Trump:

Donald Trump is now the leader of the Republican Party. It’s real – he is one step away from the White House. Here’s what else is real:

Trump has built his campaign on racism, sexism, and xenophobia. There’s more enthusiasm for him among leaders of the KKK than leaders of the political party he now controls.

He incites supporters to violence, praises Putin, and, according to a columnist who recently interviewed him, is “cool with being called an authoritarian” and doesn’t mind associations with history’s worst dictators.

He attacks veterans like John McCain who were captured and puts our servicemembers at risk by cheerleading illegal torture. In a world with ISIS militants and leaders like North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Un conducting nuclear tests, he surrounds himself with a foreign policy team that has been called a “collection of charlatans,” and puts out contradictory and nonsensical national security ideas one expert recently called “incoherent” and “truly bizarre.”

What happens next will test the character for all of us – Republican, Democrat, and Independent. It will determine whether we move forward as one nation or splinter at the hands of one man’s narcissism and divisiveness. I know which side I’m on, and I’m going to fight my heart out to make sure Donald Trump’s toxic stew of hatred and insecurity never reaches the White House.

It will be interesting to see which media figures, pundits, Republicans, and Independents denounce Trump or at least his tactics.  It will also be interesting to see how President Obama involves himself in this campaign once Bernie finally ends his personal journey for the nomination.

Update: At Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall is recording the official position of all prominent Republican figures regarding Trump. He has a five point scale with endorsement at one end never Trump at the other end, with 3 different weasel spots in the middle.  To be clear, I am presuming most Republican officials and pundits will in fact endorse or at least support Trump. But not all, and it will be interesting to see exactly where everyone stands.  Check it out:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/we-will-jump-into-the-breach

 

 

Today looks like the end for Cruz, making Trump the Republican nominee.  Polls point to a Trump victory in Indiana. But beyond that, Josh Voorhees at Slate tracks Trump and Cruz’s net favorability among Republicans.  Through March, Cruz bested Trump. But in the past few weeks, Cruz’s support has collapsed.  His net favorably among Republicans is negative 6.  Trump is at positive 24.  I just don’t see anyway that Cruz can win enough delegates to deny Trump a first ballot nomination.  Check out the graph at:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/03/ted_cruz_s_favorability_rating_plummets.html

Andrew Sullivan has a very scary piece about Trump and tyranny.  It’s long, and I may not agree with all of it.  But there is no denying that Trump is a very dangerous figure worthy of greater denunciation than has occurred so far.  A link:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

Given the above it’s very important for anti-Trump forces to unite.  And not just Democrats and Independents, some Republicans too.  I’d like to see Bernie be part of that unity against Trump.  It’s actually quite important.  But his talk of a contested Democratic convention makes me think unity and defeating Trump is the last thing on his mind.  Please prove me wrong Bernie.

 

 

Mrs. Center Left asked if Trump could win.  I said probably not. The betting markets show HRC at a 75 percent chance of becoming President.  But 75 percent is not a certainty.  And Trump’s chances of becoming the nominee are also now at about 75 percent.  Some pundits are in fact thinking that Trump’s nomination is inevitable.  I’m not quite at inevitable, but certainly, given his recent over performance relative to his polls and prior trends, he has a much better than 25 percent chance of being the nominee on the first ballot than I estimated just a few weeks ago.  An HRC/Trump battle is now very likely, if a little short of inevitable.  If Trump wins Indiana, then he will be the nominee.  If he loses, then there may be a contested convention.  But even then, I expect, but am not certain, that he would probably win on the first ballot through a combination of his pledged delegates, plus un-pledged, especially those unbound delegates from PA districts that Trump won heavily.

The most likely outcome of a Trump/HRC battle is a Clinton victory  by a historically large margin of about 55 to 45 percent.  Some pundits, and Mr. Center Left Sr., are thinking about a 59-41 blow-out, but I think that’s unlikely.  There are enough Republican loyalists and HRC haters to push Trump’s numbers up toward at least 45.  A huge HRC win along with recapturing the Senate and making gains in the House is the most likely outcome, but Trump could win.  An economic downturn, terrorist attack, or HRC scandal could give Trump a chance to win.  That’s the 25 percent.

Ross Douthat has an excellent column explaining that despite Trump’s moderate positions  on entitlements and some other issues, his extreme rhetoric and style makes any real airing of his positions impossible for most of the electorate. From Douthat:

Are there Hispanic swing voters who would vote for a Republican who promised to protect entitlements and avoid messy foreign wars? Sure. Are there upper-middle-class white women who would vote for a Republican who seemed to be friendly to gay rights and favorably disposed to Planned Parenthood? No doubt. Are there African-American voters who would support a candidate who wants to renegotiate trade deals, limit low-skilled immigration and spend more money on U.S. infrastructure? I’m certain there are.

But will any of these constituencies vote for Donald Trump? For Trump the rank misogynist, Trump the KKK-flirter, Trump the deport-the-Mexican-rapists candidate? If you read seven of Trump’s positions to the median Hispanic voter, they might agree with five or six of them … but Trump’sfavorability/unfavorability ratings with Hispanics are 12/77. If you go back to last August, before the campaign began, Trump had a 20 percent favorable rating with African-Americans; by Republican standards that’s not terrible. Six months of race-baiting later, he’s winning 5 percent of the black vote against Hillary Clinton. And women … well, he’s losing women, let’s put it that way, on a scale that no Republican nominee ever has before.

Hence his essential unelectability, which no centrist positioning is likely to much change.

Bottom line, Trump is a weak candidate likely to be defeated. But he is so toxic, it is scary that there is even the possibility that he might become President.

Back in 2015 before the summer of Trump and the rise of Bernie, my general political sense (hunch) was that Hillary Clinton would be a modest favorite in the November 2016 election.  I perceived that 2016 would be a “stay the course” rather than a “time for a change” election, and that HRC was would be a good vehicle for a such a status quo message despite her flaws as a politician.  I believed that “stay the course” would be a likely (though not certain) winning message over the Republican nominee for several reasons.

1. Unemployment was low and getting lower.
2. Interests rates an inflation were both very low.
3. The stock market was near an all time high.
4. The nation was at peace with no terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
5. There was no civil unrest.
6. The deficit was going down as a percentage of GDP.
7. The Democrats have won the popular vote in very presidential election going back to 1992, except 2004.
8. The Republican nominee was likely to be even more conservative than the last elected Republican, GW Bush.
9. Demographics favored the Democrats. The Democrat coalition of minorities and college educated whites was growing as a share of the electorate while non-college educated whites (the core of the Republican base) was shrinking.
10. A more conservative nominee would have an even harder time overcoming the demographic trends already favoring the Democrats in higher turn-out Presidential elections.

So I concluded then that HRC would be about a 60 favorite.  This was hardly a slam dunk.  Changes in the economy or a terrorist attack or a genuine external threat remained a possibility.  Moreover, I understand that the gains of the recovery have not been widely spread and many feel left behind. But the usual Republican nostrums of foreign policy belligerence (wars of choice) and tax cuts for the rich were not likely to resonate in this environment.

Those 10 from above still look pretty good to me.  The stock market has been volatile but recently has been rising, and is now not far from all time highs.  Ferguson and the black lives matter arguments do call slightly into question the “no civil unrest” point, but all in all the country is at peace with an improving economy as we move into the second quarter of 2016.  If anything, ISIS seems like less of threat today than last summer.

So I was surprised to read the following in a Timothy Egan piece:

If nothing else, the astounding presidential election of 2016 has shown that Americans are ready to junk the present system and try something bold, even reckless. Small ball is out. Incremental change is a nonstarter. Big will beat little.  Almost two-thirds of voters — Democratic and Republican majorities — agreed with the statement that “The old way of doing things no longer works and we need radical change,” when asked in a recent Quinnipiac University poll. This is not a frustrated fringe.

 The Quinnipiac finding that nearly two-thirds favor radical changes is shocking to me.   Even if you accept the finding (which I am struggling with and plan to research more), Egan, like me has trouble seeing how Trump or Sanders could be the solution.  Egan writes cleverly and perceptively that “The largest cluster of voters willing to chuck the status quo, not surprisingly, supports Donald Trump. But he offers nothing for them, no details, no workable solutions, just a buffoon with a gold-plated selfie stick.”  Regarding the Vermont Senator, he writes “Sanders is a sloganeer with authenticity. But a rant, no matter how dead-on, is not a governing blueprint. His answer, on a number of occasions, to complex issues has been “I haven’t thought about it a whole lot.” In many areas, he’s almost substance-free.”

A few months back I wrote about Ezra Klein’s description of Hillary’s view as “The Audacity of Political Realism.”  Her approach and agenda still fits well with a “stay the course” election which I foresee.  But has something deeper happened to the electorate making it a change election?  I remain doubtful, despite the Quinnipiac finding.  My hunch is that certain partisans on both sides crave greater change, but the broader middle of the electorate remains ready to embrace the status quo with just a few tweaks.

According to Nate Silver, the betting markets now have HRC with a 71 percent chance of becoming the next President.  Her all time high.  If she can find the right tweaks to campaign upon, her numbers will go even higher.

 

My last post ended with a question about party unity for the Republicans. Let me turn for a moment to the Democrats.  Everyone (all 7 readers of this blog) knows I strongly favor HRC over Bernie.  I watched some of the last debate between HRC and Sanders.  I found Bernie to be very negative and in fact condescending to Clinton.  It started me wondering, when Clinton finishes the primary season with several million more votes than Bernie, (she currently leads by 2.4 million, with 57 percent of the votes cast), will he bow out gracefully, as Clinton did 8 years ago? I hope so. But Bernie’s demeanor at the debate left me wondering.

Clinton is not a natural politician.  She sometimes acts entitled and makes unforced errors. But she has been in politics for over 3 decades fighting for things she believes in and putting up with more than her share of negative media attention.  But when she lost the nomination in 2008, she was a team player and worked with Obama.  For liberal HRC doubters (and team Bernie), I would point out her support for Obama following her own defeat in the primary represents good character on her part.  May Bernie surprise me a little and be just as gracious when the time comes.