Archive for the ‘USA: politics’ Category

Clinton & Trump at UNLV

[update below]

Alhamdulillah the debates are done with and I don’t have to ever again subject myself to watching Donald Trump bloviate—save for his concession speech on November 8th in the event he gives one. Numerous pundits have said that last night’s debate was his strongest of the three, that he was even incisive at points early on, and only started to melt down after the first half hour or so—as opposed to ten minutes earlier in the previous two. If stringing together grammatically correct sentences is the criteria here, then yes, this was perhaps a better debate for him, but that is really setting the bar low. In fact, he did not utter a single coherent, informed thought at any moment. He was Donald Trump from the get go: an ignorant, mendacious, immature, bullying asshole of an idiot who doesn’t know anything about anything, who has no idea WTF he’s talking about on any question that is put to him, and quite simply has no business running for president of the United States. E.g. his response to Chris Wallace’s question on Syria and Iraq, which was that of a 9th grader talking off the top of his head during a class presentation he hadn’t prepared for. That a major party presidential candidate could blather uninformed bullshit to that degree was an embarrassing moment for the American nation. As I’ve said more than once, the fact that Trump has gotten this far, that he is the presidential nominee of one of the two major parties and is viewed favorably, on this October 20th 2016, by some 35% of the electorate, reflects some serious, systemic flaws in the American political system—indeed in the US constitution (a flawed document as it is)—and is a damning indictment of a part of American society. Anyone who could have nodded their heads in agreement at anything Trump said last night—and who thought he actually “won” the debate—is as much of an ignorant idiot as he is, point barre.

It is now banal to call Trump a fascist or dictator-in-waiting, to observe that he is running not only against Hillary Clinton but against democracy itself, that he has no understanding of or respect for the institutions of American government, and that his rise represents, as Princeton historian Sean Wilentz wrote last week, a veritable “national emergency.” This is uncontroversial even among Republicans. But fewer Trump detractors—in the punditocracy at least—have come out and said en noir et blanc what is now patently obvious, which is that Trump is mentally ill. He is, as Slate’s William Saletan came out and asserted in a post-debate commentary, a clinical paranoiac. The man is psychotic. The Washington Post’s conservative columnist Michael Gerson—who’s been on an anti-Trump tear—wrote the other day about Trump’s “ideological psychosis” but stopped short of labeling that psychosis psychiatric. In view of Trump’s indisputable mental condition, if he were to, by some calamitous scenario, win on November 8th—and with the imminent prospect of getting his little fingers on the nuclear codes—he would clearly have to be stopped, if not by a sufficient defection of faithless electors when the Electoral College meets on December 19th, then by a version à l’américaine of the Wolf’s Lair operation in East Prussia on July 20th 1944, except with this one succeeding, suivez mon regard. Fortunately it won’t come to that, as Trump is not going to win the election. Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

As for Trump’s intimation that he may not accept the result of the election—if he loses, of course—everyone is saying that this was the key moment of the debate, when Trump definitively lost it. Even Fox News talking heads found Trump’s words unacceptable. But while what Trump said was shocking and unprecedented in American history, I tend to agree with the otherwise unspeakable William Kristol—whom I would normally not link to positively—who, in a tweet storm after the debate, asserted that Trump may say whatever he pleases about the election but that if the latter is recognized as legitimate by the American people in its great majority—as it will be—and certified by election officials, then Trump can’t do a thing about it. His stomping and screaming will have no effect, and all the more so as, continuing in Kristol’s vein, establishment Republican Party politicians will accept the election outcome to a man and woman. Trump will look even more the unhinged crackpot that he is. He will be utterly isolated. And the republic will survive.

As for his hardcore supporters, who are numerous, lots of people are alarmed and worried about their eventual reaction to the inevitable defeat. Civil disorder, even violence, is feared. Trump’s legions are indeed crazy—and with a cult-like adoration of their guru—and driven by a virulent hatred of a large part of their society. This is a serious problem for America and will not be resolved anytime soon. The hatred of the Trumpistas of people not like themselves is of a degree that, in other contexts, can lead to civil war and massacres. And Trump’s supporters, unlike Hillary’s, are armed, even heavily. This is nothing to be dismissive of. But if Trump dead-enders try to do anything illegal after November 8th, e.g. engage in violent action, they will bring the fury of the American state down on them. The FBI will arrest them en masse. And if they resist by the force of arms, the federal government will repress them violently, i.e. the Trumpistas will be liquidated. Terminated with extreme prejudice. So let them try.

I’ve written over nine hundred words here already and hardly said a thing about Hillary Clinton. While Trump was the Grand Guignol of last night’s debate, Hillary was the vedette. She was a star: absolutely excellent, poised, articulate, in command of everything, with precisely the right positions on 95% of the issue questions that were posed to her, who played Trump like a violin, et j’en passe. No one gets the better of Hillary Clinton in a debate. And there is no one out there in American political life who is more qualified than she to be POTUS. If the Dems win a majority in both the Senate and House—which is not an outlandish scenario at this date—then she will have the potential to be a great president. Lingering Hillary-hating Bernie supporters need to rethink their attitude.

Now Hillary’s debate performance, while earning overwhelming praise from pundits, was critiqued on a couple of points, notably her dodging the questions on open borders and the Clinton Foundation. But her dodges were adroit, IMO, as she would have needed more than her allotted two minutes to adequately answer them, to give the questions the necessarily complex responses they would have entailed, and that would have likely been over the heads of intellectually-challenged voters and, moreover, provided out-of-context sound bites and other ammunition for Trump propaganda. So better to avoid and move on.

On Hillary’s brilliance in playing Trump, see TNR senior editor Jeet Heer’s post-debate commentary, “Hillary Clinton destroyed Trump in the debates just by being a grown-up.” Money quote:

There’s been a powerful gender subtext running through all the debates. As a pathbreaking woman proving herself in a man’s world, Clinton used the familiar strategy of women in this situation of studying hard and being as professional as possible. Trump, by contrast, was constantly reverting to his natural state of toxic masculinity. It’s not uncommon in the corporate world for a well-prepared woman to compete against a man who thinks he can wing it. That was the fundamental dynamic of the presidential debates.

Yet thanks to her hard work and Trump’s fecklessness, Clinton ended up displaying all the traits that men are traditionally supposed to have for the presidency—the steadiness, the unflappability, the steeliness under pressure and assault. He came across with traits of a stereotypical “female,” all the reasons they were once thought to be “unfit” for jobs like this. He couldn’t control his emotions, he personalized everything, he whined. You almost came out of these debates thinking, “Are men fit to be president?” She “proved” a woman is fit, and how she reduced him to acting like a little boy (or, more in popular stereotype, like a girl).

Trump acting “like a girl.” A sure-fire guarantee to get under his thin skin, c’est sûr. Heer continues

Earlier in the week, Melania Trump had defended her husband’s behavior in the infamous “Access Hollywood” video where he boasted of sexual assaults by saying that the Republican nominee was basically a big child. As she told Anderson Cooper, “I have two boys at home, I have my young son and my husband.”

Hillary Clinton’s genius in the debates has been to constantly troll Trump into reverting to that intrinsic state of childishness—most memorably when he muttered “such a nasty woman” toward the end of Wednesday’s debate, while Clinton was answering a question about entitlements. His peevishness left her by default as the adult in the room. By constantly being above it all, smiling as he engaged in insults, keeping calm while he hovered behind her in the second debate like a would-be stalker, she proved she had presidential mettle. Her steel nerves and unflappability, which had earlier been displayed in the marathon grilling of the Benghazi hearings, were deeply impressive.

Yes, she’s impressive. If anyone wishes to disagree, please explain your reasoning.

On Trump’s base, the pseudonymous David Wong, who is executive editor of Cracked.com, has a personalistic post dated October 12th on “How half of America lost its f**king mind,” which focuses on the small town-urban divide and with economic precariousness an undercurrent. Effectively countering this view is Dylan Matthews spot-on post in Vox, dated October 15th, “Taking Trump voters’ concerns seriously means listening to what they’re actually saying.” And what they’re saying is less about the economy than good old-fashioned racialist white rage.

As for Hillary’s voters, who, pour mémoire, do exist in sizable numbers, Vox’s Matthew Yglesias weighed in yesterday with a post, “There’s a new silent majority’, and it’s voting for Hillary Clinton.”

And while we’re on Vox writers—it’s really a great website—see Ezra Klein’s post-debate reax, “Hillary Clinton’s 3 debate performances left the Trump campaign in ruins: Donald Trump didn’t just destroy himself. Hillary Clinton destroyed him.”

A couple of more pieces. Slate’s Jeremy Stahl has a most interesting one asking “Why is Donald Trump whining about a rigged election? Mark Cuban has an interesting theory.” In short, it’s about Breitbart playing Trump for its own post-election ends. Trump is Stephen Bannon’s useful idiot, which makes sense, as the latter is definitely smarter than the former.

The other is Matt Taibi’s October 14th reportage in Rolling Stone, “The fury and failure of Donald Trump.” The lede: “Win, lose or drop out, the Republican nominee has laid waste to the American political system. On the trail for the last gasp of the ugliest campaign in our nation’s history.” There’s a tenacious idea out there that Hillary is a structurally weak candidate who would certainly be defeated by any other Republican candidate but Trump. Taibi—who’s a great writer—pretty effectively rubbishes that notion in the way he describes the 17-candidate clown bus in the 2016 GOP primary campaign. Hillary would have been able to handle any of these jokers. A must-read.

À suivre.

UPDATE: The Huffington Post has compiled some of the #TrumpBookReport tweets, that were spawned on Twitter in response to Trump’s clueless debate answers. Hilarious.

Read Full Post »

Hillary Clinton,Donald Trump

[update below] [2nd update below] [3rd update below] [4th update below] [5th update below] [6th update below]

I just finished watching the debate on YouTube, on this Monday afternoon. Qu’est-ce que vous voulez que je dise? Clinton was excellent and from beginning to end. She killed it, point barre. Who were the nitwit pundits who said that she is a “weak candidate” (which I have read so often that I’ve lost touch of the number of nitwits who’ve said it)? As Michelle Goldberg titled her instant analysis, Hillary “was a model of grace and poise throughout a disgusting ordeal.” To call the debate disgusting is to put it most mildly. It is beyond comprehension how pundits—of whom there are a certain number—could declare that Trump somehow “won” it, or at least scored a tie, and to assert that Hillary did not do what she had to do, that she failed to take advantage of this or that opportunity, or whatever. Bollocks. Trump was more odious and reprehensible than two weeks ago at Hofstra, if that’s possible, and demonstrated for the 870,000th time that he doesn’t know anything about anything—having to do with policy and the institutions of the US government—and that he is a complete and total idiot and for whom literally every thought he utters is incoherent and/or an outright lie. Watching the debate in the faculty lounge at the ICP between classes, I put it on pause at one moment—when Trump was railing on with ignorant bullshit about Syria, ISIS, and Mosul (a city he had likely not heard of before his debate prep and couldn’t locate on a map even if one threatened to blow up the Trump Tower)—telling a bemused colleague that the French have no idea of the calamity that has befallen the American political system, that Marine Le Pen is Aristotle compared to Trump and that I would vote for her in a nanosecond over the GOP’s unspeakable candidate if a gun were put to my head. My god, I would even vote for (gulp) Sarkozy if presented with such a Sophie’s choice. Trump was indeed deemed by certain pundits to have “won”—or at least “stanched the bleeding”—because he uttered a few more grammatically correct sentences—with subjects and predicates, and verbs, adjectives, and prepositions properly aligned—than in the first debate. The bar has been set ever lower in American electoral politics. The ‘banana republicanization’ of the United States.

On America becoming a ‘banana republic’ if Trump wins and has Hillary prosecuted and thrown in the slammer, as he promised last night, see the comments by Slate’s excellent Jamelle Bouie, Vox’s Ezra Klein—who wrote that “[a]t Sunday’s debate, Donald Trump revealed that he is not running to be America’s president so much as its dictator”—WaPo’s editorial board, and, above all, the libertarian Niskanen Center’s vice president Will Wilkinson, who, in a NYT op-ed, concluded with this

[Trump] said, in a widely watched televised presidential debate, that if he became president, he would put political opponents in cages. That’s dictator talk. But it’s not Mr. Trump’s open contempt for the norms of liberal democracy that made my blood run cold. It was the applause that came after. It is the fact that it’s no longer assured that you automatically lose a presidential debate in which you promise to jail your political rival.

Trump’s deplorables loved what he said. And those deplorables—a.k.a. the Republican Party base—are a sizable portion of the American electorate. Large numbers of Americans out there—almost all Republicans—want a dictator, preferably fascist. Even if the bottom falls out from under Trump and Hillary ends up winning in a landslide—a now plausible hypothesis that I scoffed at even a week ago—Trump will still receive a minimum of 45 million votes, probably more. That’s a lot of Americans who are fine with dictatorship. Chilling, en effet.

As for the Republican Party’s craven politicians, on whom abuse is being rightly heaped, see Jamelle Bouie’s excellent commentary, “The horror is everything the GOP could tolerate about Trump, and why: Republicans supported his vision of a whites-only America until he posed a threat to the voters the party needs.” Bouie discusses, entre autres, Trump’s breathtaking words on the Central Park Five. And à propos if one missed it, see the piece by The Guardian’s Oliver Laughland of last February, “Donald Trump and the Central Park Five: the racially charged rise of a demagogue.”

One nice thing about the GOP’s Trump disaster is the prise de conscience by a minority of right-wingers who are appalled and sickened by the orange haired one, including columnists George Will and and Jennifer Rubin, whom I heretofore disdained but are now fun to read (e.g. see their latest here and here). Also TWS’s Jonathan Last, who had a pithy post-debate comment. One conservative friend of mine is so revolted and repulsed by Trump that she informed me the other day that “[she is] beginning to sound like an unhinged Sanders supporter” and that this election “has actually radicalized [her].” Sois la bienvenue ma chère!

One group that is also coming around is heretofore Hillary-hating gauchiste Bernie supporters—and believe me, I have many such friends, real life and virtual—who have, as I have been noting on my Facebook news feed, been ever less critical of Hillary, when not downright positive in their attitudes toward her—and to the point where the latest Wikileaks dump, that revealed excerpts of Hillary’s speeches to Wall Street, provoked little to no reaction. Tant pis, Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin. Bad timing and too late. C’est bien. (As for my assessment on the email revelations, I largely agree with Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias).

C’est tout ce que j’ai à dire, pour le moment au moins.

UPDATE: Former NFL player Chris Kluwe, who spent most of his career as a punter with the Minnesota Vikings, has an absolutely excellent, fantastically written, must-read piece in Vox, “Dear Donald Trump: I played in the NFL. Here’s what we really talk about in the locker room.” Lots of great lines, e.g. on how Trump has “plummet[ed] past the morass of gross incivility into the abyss of depraved sociopathy.” Every Trump supporter should be obliged to read Kluwe’s piece and to the very last word.

2nd UPDATE: Conservative pundit Michael Gerson, who served in the Bush 43 administration, has a great column in The Washington Post on the Trump debacle, “Republicans deserve their sad fate.” I don’t agree with the bit about the Democrats in the 1990s but will let that slide.

3rd UPDATE: Slate associate editor Laura V. Anderson has a nice post (October 12th) on Slate’s “XX Factor: What Women Really Think” blog, “Forget this ‘Hillary is unlikable’ stuff. Hillary is downright inspiring.”

4th UPDATE: The New Yorker’s John Cassidy has a good commentary (October 12th) on the WikiLeaks dump, “The illuminating but unsurprising content of Clinton’s paid speeches.”

5th UPDATE: I watched Trump’s October 13th speech in West Palm Beach on C-SPAN, all 49 minutes of it. The face of American fascism. Ça coupe le souffle. For a shorter demonstration (under two minutes) of Trump’s fascism—and of the profound danger he poses—watch this.

In case one missed it last May, do read my favorite neocon Robert Kagan’s WaPo column, “This is how fascism comes to America.”

6th UPDATE: If one didn’t see Michelle Obama’s great speech yesterday (October 13th) in Manchester NH—certainly the best of the campaign and by anyone—watch it here.

Read Full Post »


[update below]

Last February I wrote the following on social media, in an impatient response to numerous Democratic Party-voting worrywart friends who were losing sleep over Trump’s surge

Can I say something? At some point this year – in two weeks or eight months – Trump is going to crash and burn. It *will* happen – this is a certainty – and be a sight to behold. I just hope, for purely partisan reasons, that it happens after he gets the GOP nomination, and brings the wanker party in Congress down with him in the process. But there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the American people will elect this loudmouthed, narcissistic egomaniac president of the United States. It will not happen. So I ask my liberal-lefty friends to please stop wringing their hands, fretting, spooking themselves, and getting all frantic and bent out of shape over this impossibility.

Now I did express less certainty last month over this confident assertion but, with Trump’s 2005 hot mic video, maybe we are indeed, at long last, witnessing the crashing and burning of his insane candidacy. How wonderful that would be. Inshallah.

It would also be nice if we could ban the expression “locker room talk,” which refers to the way men are thought to talk about women in the privacy of exclusively male company (and that mainly happens outside locker rooms). Now men, among themselves, often do talk about women in ways that they would not if their female companions or friends were present—and with women doing likewise when talking about men—but, personally speaking, I can’t think of any male friend of mine, since my early 20s at least, who has talked about women in the way that Trump did in the 2005 video—and when he was 59 years old—and of not only using vulgar language in referring to women but mirthfully recounting how he sexually assaults them. If this doesn’t cause his candidacy to crash and burn, then nothing will.

Everyone knows that Clinton’s poll numbers have dramatically improved since the first debate, with heretofore panic-stricken Dems now confident that she’ll win and handily. The numbers I’m tracking in particular are her and Trump’s favorable/unfavorable ratings and the spread between the two. Hillary’s position here has improved over the past week (see above graph). If the spread widens, as it no doubt will, the election is all but over. It’s in the bag.

It has been said countless times by pundits that Hillary’s negative favorable/unfavorable numbers are the worst in polling history for a presidential nominee, with the exception of Trump himself, and that such would normally be the electoral kiss of death. But Hillary’s present -9.5 favorable/unfavorable spread isn’t shabby at all when compared to that of French politicians with presidential ambitions, most of whom would die to have her numbers. The latest IPSOS-Le Point baromètre politique, which is the French polling gold standard for this ranking, reveals that only one top-tier French politico has favorable numbers, which is Alain Juppé, whose spread is +12 (48% favorable/36% unfavorable). Everyone else is in negative territory, and some breathtakingly so. E.g. François Hollande is at -65 (15/80)—which is not his record (he was at 13/83 in September 2014)—and with PM Manuel Valls—who may well jump into the PS’s January primary in the (likely) event that Hollande throws in the towel on seeking reelection—is at -48 (23/71). As these two men are the executives of an exceptionally unpopular government, they are thus being judged on their actual job performance. But Hollande’s two loudest detractors, Nicolas Sarkozy and Marine Le Pen—who have been doing nothing but shoot off their mouths—are hardly better off, with both showing identical numbers: -43 (26/69). This is quite something (and Sarkozy’s worst number ever, which is one reason why he cannot and will not win the LR primary next month, and also why Marine LP cannot and will not be elected president of the republic next spring). For the record, two other top-tier politicians, Jean-François Copé and Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, are also at -43 (18/61 and 24/67, respectively). The French electorate really doesn’t like its politicians these days, but which, contrary to popular belief, is not working to the benefit of Gallic Donald Trump wannabes.

So Hillary and Dem voters can take heart that it could really be a lot worse for her, i.e. she could be French.

UPDATE: TDB editor-in-chief John Avlon, who labels himself a centrist and independent, has an excellent commentary on how “Donald Trump just lost the election.”

Ditto for Ezra Klein’s latest in Vox, “A Donald Trump presidency would bring shame on this country: At long last, have we no decency?”


Read Full Post »


[update below]

I didn’t bother watching the V-P debate in 2012 (Biden-Ryan, pour mémoire) but given the peculiar nature of this election, felt that I should this one, so caught it on YouTube this Wednesday morning. It was the first time I’d seen Mike Pence apart from a couple of minutes of his remarks when Trump announced his pick (and leaving the press conference as Pence began to speak). Tim Kaine I’d seen only a couple of times, one being his great speech when Clinton rolled out his nomination, so had a positive impression of him. The early consensus among pundits is that Pence “won” the debate and Kaine “lost” it, and with instant polls apparently giving Pence the advantage. N’importe quoi. Neither won nor lost. Both men did what they had to do. I thought Kaine was very good; he was articulate, crisp, and sharp, and didn’t miss a beat. Certain pundits tweeted—I didn’t keep track of who said what—that he was “over-rehearsed,” “tense,” kept repeating his “talking points” (whatever the hell a “talking point” is), blah blah. The degré zéro of instant punditry. Kaine’s two-part mission in the debate was to promote Hillary to the hilt and tear down Trump, doing the latter by repeating several times the gross, outrageous, racist, sexist statements Trump has made about women, Mexicans, blacks, the handicapped, and other groups. Gotta keep reminding people of that, including Pence and Republicans, and not let it go. I thought Kaine succeeded in all this. However… he undermined himself by continually interrupting Pence, particularly during the first third of the debate. It was irritating. At one point I blurted out to him, via the computer screen, “shut up! let him finish!” Pence also started to interrupt as the debate progressed and with Kaine doing it less, but as first impressions are invariably the ones that stick, Kaine will be seen as the main interrupter, which never helps. This is not to say that he “lost” the debate, just that he by no means “won” it.

As for Pence, he was good on form: calm and generally collected, i.e. the anti-Trump. And while he repeatedly shook his head when Kaine reminded him of Trump’s words—all 100% true—his body language was not off-putting IMO. On substance, he was a mix of langue de bois, untruths, and Republican hot air. Mainstream Republican voters were surely happy with what they saw, and with the party establishment certainly regretting that he’s not the one at the top of the ticket. It was almost breathtaking how Pence both denied that Trump had said things that had indeed said and refrained from defending him at several points, and, moreover, taking positions on foreign policy that Trump has never expressed. E.g. Pence, expressing consternation over Aleppo, said that “what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones” in Syria to which the “vulnerable” and “families with children” could move to, that the “provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength,” and that “the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime, to prevent them from this humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Aleppo…”

Wow! Has Donald Trump ever so much as hinted at any of this? Even indirectly? And the bit about “deploy[ing] a missile defense shield to the Czech Republic and Poland”? Has Trump even mentioned those countries during the campaign, let alone a missile defense shield? This is Pence’s policy—and the establishment GOP’s—not that of the party’s candidate. Really too bad Kaine didn’t point this out, or ask Pence about it. A golden opportunity missed.

The American “deep state” will be reassured, that’s for sure. Pence is a mainstream conservative Republican, a Ted Cruz on Valium. If Trump wins the election and, heaven forbid, something happens to him—suivez mon regard—Pence will be, for the “deep state,” perfectly acceptable in the Oval Office. And the congressional GOP will be aux anges.

As for the rest of us, ce sera le cauchemar…

The bottom line: neither candidate moved a single vote. Both were speaking to their respective party’s base and shoring it up. And both no doubt succeeded. They did what they had to do.

And what they did will all be forgotten after Sunday’s town hall debate between Clinton and Trump, which will be a doozy, sans aucun doute.

A few good instant analyses I’ve come across:

Jamelle Bouie in Slate, “This wasn’t a debate. This was a national gaslighting: If Mike Pence ‘won,’ it’s because he was shameless about denying reality.”

David Corn in Mother Jones, “Mike Pence and the failure of the Republican establishment: In their hearts, they know they are wrong.”

Kevin Drum, also in MoJo, “Mike Pence lied constantly last night. So how can he be the winner of the debate?”

Joan Walsh in The Nation, “Tim Kaine rubbed Mike Pence’s nose in Trump’s crazy: Kaine interrupted his way to the truth at the vice-presidential debate.”

Paul Waldman in The Washington Post, “When 2016 is over, the GOP will pretend Donald Trump never existed.”

UPDATE: Voilà a few more good commentaries:

Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker, “Mike Pence, dancing with Trump: In the Vice-Presidential debate, Pence demonstrated the scale of the denial and self-delusion of those aligned with Donald Trump.”

Jonathan Chait in New York magazine, “Mike Pence lost the debate because he lied about the wrong stuff: Never lie about statements that are on video.” À propos, check out the great attack ad (in the article) that the Clinton campaign rolled out shortly after the debate.

Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, “Mike Pence is a coward and an extremist: He’s the perfect face of the GOP.”

Read Full Post »


Everyone has been talking about the apparent revelation of her veritable identity, published simultaneously, as one knows, in five different countries (in the US, in the NY Review of Books; in France, in Mediapart). Ça défraye la chronique. As for the reaction to the revelation, it’s been heavily negative, as reported in the press and that I have also noted on social media (though some argue that the revelation was both inevitable and not a bad thing). Now when I say “everyone” knows about this, it’s because everyone—i.e. everyone in my socio-educational stratum—has either read Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan novels, is presently doing so, or intends to. And, BTW, this includes Hillary Clinton, who recently revealed that she loves reading Ferrante and finds the Neapolitan novels “hypnotic” (kind of like Barack Obama telling a journalist during the 2008 campaign that his favorite TV series was ‘The Wire’: a reminder to part of his base that “I’m one of you; I share your highbrow cultural tastes”).

If, by chance, one does not yet know about the Neapolitan novels—which is actually a single novel in four parts—go here. I recently finished the second one, so still have two to go (the third, so I have been told by several friends, is the chef d’œuvre of the four). I am not a big literature person, as those who know me know, but love reading Ferrante—as do 98.5% of my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances who have read her. The last series of novels I so enjoyed was David Lodge’s campus trilogy, and that was some time ago. My Brilliant Friend is a page turner from page 1, so one gets into it right away (and my wife, who is a literature person, wholly agrees; she just started the first one en français and is already half way through; and the French translation is excellent, so she says, as I find the English). It is not only a vividly recounted story of the relationship between two women, from childhood onward, and with all the supporting characters, but also brilliantly depicts a society and culture at a particular moment in history, here—through the first two books—the (southern) Italian working class in the 1950s and ’60s. As social science, I find it fascinating. And it’s all very Italian, like so many epic Italian films—if I were to draw up a list, it would go into the double digits—that follow a person or group of friends over a lifetime, or a family over generations, and with repères of modern Italian history. It’s an Italian genre.

So if one has not yet read Ferrante, take this as a recommendation to do so.


Read Full Post »

Clinton & Trump at Hofstra U.


[update below] [2nd update below] [3rd update below] [4th update below] [5th update below] [6th update below] [7th update below] [8th update below] [9th update below] [10th update below]

I just watched the debate—this Tuesday morning—on YouTube. I knew how it had gone beforehand—that Hillary had won it hands down—having woken up when it was at mid-point (3:45am CET) and followed the live commentaries and reactions on my Twitter feed. Strictly on form, I thought Trump wasn’t too bad for the first twenty minutes or so, though the content of what he said on trade and jobs was pure Trumpian bullshit. He is a total ignoramus on these subjects—as on every other—with no idea WTF he’s talking about. And for the last hour of the debate, he reverted to being his typical Donald Trump self, from A to Z. Everyone watched him, so no explanation required. Borrowing from Andrew Sullivan’s live blog of the debate, Trump was like a drunk in a bar, incoherently ranting and raving. Echoing what I and millions of people have said countless times, it is simply beyond belief that such a person could be the presidential nominee of one of the two major parties and with an actual chance of going to the White House. If I had to choose between Trump and Marine Le Pen, I would the latter in a split second. The fact that Trump has gotten this far is not only a damning indictment of the Republican Party—which deserves to die as a result (though it won’t)—but also of a very large portion of American society.

As for Hillary, her performance was tops IMO: articulate, calm, poised, nerves of steel, in command of the issues… In short, she was Hillary Clinton. There has not been, in my lifetime at least, a presidential nominee who knows policy better than she and is more qualified to be president. As for her debate persona, of being supposedly over-rehearsed, robotic, smug-looking, “too much head and not enough heart” (dixit WaPo’s Chris Cillizza), and whatever snarky reproach Maureen Dowd will no doubt level at her: bof… It’s of zero importance so long as she killed it on substance. Sure, form does matter greatly in debates, but Hillary had no problem in this department last night. For those who think she did—that there were problems with her facial expressions or body language—what could she have possibly done differently? Please tell.

I have no idea what effect the debate will have on the polls. Anyone who has been supporting Trump up to this point—who has given the slightest credence to his bullshit, cares not a whit about his lies and insults, and has not been repulsed by his persona and horrified at the mere thought of him being president—is not going to rethink that support on account of his performance last night. They love the way he is. Some soft Trump supporters—e.g. working class Democratic voters in the Rust Belt states, moderate Republicans—may now declare themselves undecided to pollsters and perhaps consider voting Hillary or sitting out the election. On verra. The main effect will be to calm down Democrats who have been panic-stricken at the tightening of the race and been freaking out as FiveThirtyEight’s chances of Hillary winning have headed south into the 50s. Hillary’s debate victory should arrest her polling descente aux enfers and cause the numbers to uptick a point or two. Nate Silver, for his part, thinks she’ll see a gain—though if she doesn’t, then it may well be panic time.

Slate’s Michelle Goldberg has a good instant comment on the debate—in which she called Trump a “walking phallus”—”At the first presidential debate, Hillary proves she’s got this.”


Vox’s Ezra Klein, “The first debate featured an unprepared man repeatedly shouting over a highly prepared woman: The coherence gap between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was devastating.”

Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, “Donald Trump’s first presidential debate confirmed he has no idea what he’s talking about.”

New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait, “Ranting bully Donald Trump came unglued in first presidential debate.”

Anyone want to take bets on Trump bailing out of the second debate?

UPDATE: Arthur Goldhammer has a must-read meditation in The Nation (September 28th), “What would Alexis de Tocqueville have made of the 2016 US presidential election? Feverish thoughts from a moment of ‘extreme peril’.”

2nd UPDATE: David Wasserman at FiveThiryEight (September 29th) has something to calm the nerves of those terrified by the specter of a Trump victory, “‘Missing’ white voters could elect Trump. But first they need to register.”

3rd UPDATE: David Roberts at Vox (September 29th) has a must-read commentary that tells us what we’ve been sensing but does it very well, “The question of what Donald Trump ‘really believes’ has no answer. It is a category error.” The money quote is the very last sentence.

See also WaPo’s Chris Cillizza (September 29th), “This is the single most remarkable thing I have read about Donald Trump in a very long time.” Really frightening.

4th UPDATE: Ex “Bernie bro” Isaac Saul explains, on his A Grain of Saul blog (September 27th), his salutary change of heart: “I wrote that I despised Hillary Clinton. Today, I want to publicly take it back.” He adds: “After months of thought and research, I’ve come to enthusiastically support Clinton.”

For idiot Bernie bros out there contemplating a vote for Jill Stein, or politically illiterate millennials who think Gary Johnson is cool because he smokes reefer and should therefore be president of the United States and leader of the Free World, please read Thomas Geoghegan’s tribune in the venerable lefty In These Times (September 26th), “3 reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton that have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton: We can’t ignore the ways that having a Democrat in the White House matters.”

5th UPDATE: Danielle Allen, a political theorist at Harvard University, writes in The Washington Post (September 30th), “I’ve come to admire Hillary Clinton. What on earth happened?”

See also in WaPo the op-ed by Ruth Marcus, “Most people grow out of middle school. Not Donald Trump.” The WaPo report she links to on Trump’s childhood (at ‘hurling rocks’) is a must-read.

6th UPDATE: Politico Magazine has a lengthy investigative report (September 30th) by journalist Garrett M. Graff, “What the FBI files reveal about Hillary Clinton’s email server: New documents tell the full, strange story of a technophobic VIP, a sloppy State Department, and the jerry-rigged computer that held it all together.” A friend, who works for the state of California, linked to it on social media with the following comment:

The State Department’s IT was FUBAR, so she let her aides come up with ways she could do her job without using their system.

Basically, she bypassed the petty rules and dysfunctional bureaucracy so she could do her job serving the public.

I think most of us who work for the government have done something similar at one time or another.

When you do that, and it comes to light, you have to say: Yes, I made a mistake, I’m sorry. You have to take the fall, because you can’t condone the rule-breaking, even if you know rule-breaking is sometimes necessary to get the job done.

And the people who use this uncomfortable situation to try to impugn your integrity (and I think most of us in government have encountered them)? Screw ’em. Seriously, fuck those people. They are a blight on the goodness and basic decency that is at the core of public service.

7th UPDATE: We’ve all read about how Donald Trump stiffs contractors and other people who do work for him, which is, at minimum, prima facie proof that he is a sociopath, indeed an outright criminal. It is beyond comprehension how, knowing this indisputable fact about Trump—which he all but confirmed in last Monday’s debate—anyone could possibly vote for him (but do his supporters, who live in the alternate world of Fox News, AM talk radio, the Internet réacosphère, and Alt-right websites understand the extent of it?). If you, dear reader, know persons who say they are voting for Trump, please send them the account by New York-based singer-songwriter Christine Lavin, “Read what Donald did to his wedding caterer, it will make you sick,” and then ask what they make of it.

8th UPDATE: See the latest salvo by the (politically centrist) Washington Post Editorial Board (September 30th), which has been on a tear against Trump—as have the near totality of the paper’s regular columnists, conservatives included (e.g. see this latest one by Michael Gerson)—”The clear and present danger of Donald Trump.” The editorial is the first in a series the Post will be running “on the damage [Trump] could wreak unilaterally as president.”

9th UPDATE: Here are The Washington Post’s (great) editorials on the concrete dangers that a President Trump would pose:

Donald Trump is normalizing bigotry.”

A President Trump could deport freely.”

A President Trump could end the era of American global leadership.”

Donald Trump’s contempt for American democracy.”

A President Trump could wreck progress on global warming.”

A President Trump could destroy the world economy.”

How much damage could a President Trump do? We can only begin to imagine.”

10th UPDATE: Staunch GOPer Tim Miller—a founder of the America Rising PAC and former spokesperson for Jeb Bush, entre autres—has a broadside that needs to be read by any Republican out there, “The conservative case against Donald Trump: Six reasons Republicans should not vote for Trump in November.” I obviously do not share his view of of Hillary—and we no doubt differ on countless other matters as well—but he hits a bull’s eye here in regard to Trump.

Read Full Post »

Democrats: panic time?


[update below] [2nd update below] [3rd update below] [4th update below] [5th update below] [6th update below] [7th update below] [8th update below]

No. Not yet, at any rate. Anyone who’s followed me on this knows that I have been dismissive of Trump’s chances in November, e.g. pronouncing him “all but toast” after the DNC and asserting numerous times over the months that Hillary Clinton will definitely win, period. And going back to late February, I confidently pronounced on social media that “[a]t some point this year—in two weeks or eight months—Trump is going to crash and burn. It *will* happen— this is a certainty—and be a sight to behold…”

Je suis allé un peu vite en besogne. Peut-être. He still has another seven weeks to crash and burn but I am less certain it will happen, for the simple reason that what will look like crashing and burning to those who are appalled by Trump and terrified by the prospect of him winning will not necessarily look that way to those who welcome that prospect. Trump really was right when he bragged that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still not lose his voters. One of the many depressing things about this campaign is realizing the extent to which people in the same society have—thanks in large part to the Internet, social media, cable TV news (i.e. Fox), and AM talk radio—come to inhabit such different cognitive universes, with totally different sources of information and which they process and comprehend in totally different ways. This is not news—we’ve known it for a while—but it’s hitting us over the head in a big way in this campaign. If the 213 crazy or outrageous things that Trump has said or done to date, any one of which would have sunk any other candidate—or the 258 people, places, and things he has publicly, unpresidentially insulted—have not caused a significant number of his supporters to abandon him, then likely nothing will.

I am still reasonably confident Hillary will win but, along with just about everyone I know, am unsettled, indeed nervous, about the latest change in the race, particularly when situating it in the larger context of the right-wing populism, illiberalism, and nationalism that is sweeping the Western world. The Brexit vote was a huge shock—for me and all my pro-Remain relatives and friends in the UK. And then there’s the lurch to the right in France—with Marine Le Pen striving to look presidential and Nicolas Sarkozy adopting the Front National’s positions on immigration, Islam, and identity lock, stock, and barrel—the unprecedented scores of the Alternative für Deutschland in recent Länder elections (including in Berlin on Sunday), the surge of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the rise of right-wing populist parties in the Scandinavian countries, Law and Justice in Poland, et j’en passe. And lest one forget, there’s Vladimir Putin, who won a smashing victory on Sunday; Tayyip Erdoğan entrenching his quasi dictatorship; and Bibi Netanyahu and his hard-right coalition being quasi unbeatable… The political climate in Europe is worrisome—not to mention in states on its periphery—and there is no a priori reason why it should not be likewise in the United States, as the situation there is similar in so many ways to the one here in France. E.g. a couple of weeks ago I attended a speaking event (excellent) on the Front National’s voters, with three top academic specialists and a leading pollster on the panel. The FN’s voters, such as they were described, are identical—in sociological profile, political outlook, and general world-view—to Trump-supporting Americans. They are carbon copies. I already knew this but was marveling at it nonetheless during the event (where Trump’s name was not mentioned once). And the FN is now a permanent fixture in French politics and will aggregate a sizable chunk of the electorate for years to come.

On the Brexit referendum and the parallel with Trump, if a majority of the British electorate can vote for a measure with such objectively calamitous consequences and that is so objectively inimical to both the interests and standing of their country—and swallow the lies of the demagogic politicians and media organs that promoted this—a similar type outcome in the United States can, objectively speaking, not be excluded.

À propos, see the article in Vox (September 19th) by Zack Beauchamp, “White riot: How racism and immigration gave us Trump, Brexit, and a whole new kind of politics.” (h/t Bob B.)

On Hillary’s problems, what is preoccupying is the marked lack of enthusiasm for her among millennials, Latinos, and blacks (and particularly younger black voters). And all those tens of millions of $$ spent on ads over the summer in battleground states down the drain. And then there’s her doggedly high unpopularity, with her present favorable/unfavorable number being –13, which about what it’s been for most of the year. I was confident that her favorables would rise after the DNC, that she could maybe halve that number by now, but that has not happened. For reasons I do not comprehend, a very large number of people out there simply cannot stand her. Trump’s negative spread is wider, as it has been all along, but at a current –19 he’s closing the gap. His appalling increase in popularity is entirely due to Republican voters “coming home.” It has been my operating assumption that there would be far more Republican defections from Trump than Democratic ones from Clinton, but the gap is, at present, not that significant, with #NeverTrump Republicans—university educated, women—being at least partly cancelled out by working class Dem voters going for Trump. Heretofore recalcitrant Republican voters who still don’t like Trump—and even see him as temperamentally unfit to be president—will vote for him nonetheless, as (a) they dislike Clinton and the Democrats even more, (b) Supreme Court nominations override everything, (c) he’ll sign whatever bills the GOP-controlled Congress sends his way, (d) they assume he’ll be hemmed in by Congress, the military establishment, and other institutional actors, who will make sure he doesn’t do crazy shit, (e) like the vast majority of voters everywhere, they aren’t aware of how their country may be perceived abroad, what Trump will mean for America’s standing in the world, and don’t care, and (f) maybe he won’t be so bad in office after all.

But if Trump sticks to form and tries to rule as a caudillo, that will be fine with many of his voters too, as that’s what lots of Republicans want, and particularly the new voters he’s attracting. It is pretty clear that a certain number of Trump supporters did not vote in past elections, which is making me nervous about the polls and the accuracy of their likely voter screens. On this score, I am recalling an episode of the PBS MacNeil-Lehrer Report from the early-mid 1980s, with John Judis and Curtis Gans sur le plateau, the subject being some aspect of American electoral politics. Explaining the Democratic Party’s electoral problems of the time, Judis argued that there was a “hole” in the American electorate, that the low voter turnout rate in the US compared to Western Europe was due to the high rate of abstention by lower class Americans—the kind of voters who were the base of left-wing parties in Europe and would, if they participated in American elections, presumably vote Democratic in their large majority (and pull the party to the left on economic issues in the process). Gans countered this by evoking the “Mussolini factor,” saying that if large numbers of habitual non-voters entered the system, it would likely be in positive response to a knight-on-a-white-horse candidate, i.e. a potential strongman with an anti-elitist rhetoric who promised to kick ass in Washington and solve their problems. And make America great again while doing so.

Continuing in this vein, I am also recalling a political science type article I read some fifteen years ago on the structure of voter abstention in the US—constituting half the electorate at the time in presidential elections—in which the author (whose name I cannot recall; it may have been Gans or Samuel Popkin) divided non-voters into three broad categories: (a) the apathetic, representing some 40% of abstainers, who were not interested in politics, didn’t read newspapers, and knew little about public affairs; (b) the disaffected, representing 25 to 30% of abstainers, who did follow politics, had voted in the past but didn’t feel the two major parties or its current candidates spoke to them or addressed their concerns, and (c) the alienated, also some 25 to 30%, who were angry at the system and its politicians, whom they saw as corrupt (tous pourris), beholden to special interests, and in no way represented people like themselves. The author submitted that, in our increasingly atomized society, there was not much to be done about persons in category (a)—who in the past may have been brought to the polls by family members or institutions they were a part of (e.g. trade unions)—but that (b) and (c) could suddenly enter, or reenter, the system in response to a fresh, new, different type of candidate.

That candidate doesn’t necessarily have to be a Mussolini-type strongman: e.g. Obama, with his 69.5 million votes in 2008, manifestly attracted large numbers of habitual abstainers, notably Afro-Americans. But the one outsider candidate in the present era—until this election—who most clearly fit this bill—who was not necessarily a potential caudillo but promised to unilaterally clean things up in Washington—was Ross Perot in 1992, whose candidacy (independent, self-financed) caused turnout to increase five points over that of 1988, from 53 to 58% of the eligible electorate, with 13 million more voters casting ballots (104.5 million, up from 91.5 million in ’88; in 1996 it dropped to 96 million). The New York Times exit poll in 1992 revealed that 30% of Perot’s voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot (the rest splitting evenly between Clinton and Bush).

One other thing. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, which was five points over what the final polls projected. No one had him going this high. And Perot’s voters were not mobilized by a sophisticated GOTV operation or lots of campaign workers at the grassroots. Moreover, Perot didn’t even have a political party. It was all media and the force of his personality. Trump’s candidacy is, needless to say, a much bigger juggernaut—media and otherwise—than was Perot’s. Which is why I am nervous about this election and will remain so through November 8th. Repeating myself, I do think Hillary will win—there are too many structural factors working in her favor—but the new voters Trump is attracting and the mobilization problems in the Democratic electorate are making this election, as a well-known emeritus Harvard Law School professor wrote last week (h/t Marty K.), almost impossible to predict.

Final points:

  • The election all comes down to Pennsylvania. Whoever wins PA wins the nation. If Trump wins PA, it will necessarily mean that he has also won Florida and Ohio, plus held on to North Carolina, putting him over 270 EVs. If Hillary takes PA, she wins, as Trump has no realistic path to victory without it. FWIW, the most recent poll out of PA, released yesterday, has Hillary leading Trump by 9% head-to-head (pour l’info, it was conducted by Morning Call/Muhlenberg College, whose polls earn a grade of A in FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings).
  • The favorable/unfavorable ratings are essential. If Hillary’s remains less negative than Trump’s and by at least several percentage points aggregate, it is exceedingly difficult to see how she can lose. In the nightmarish event that his negatives become less so than hers, she’s toast.
  • If Obama’s job approval rating remains what it is today—50% aggregate—it is hard to see how Hillary loses. If it suddenly goes below 48%, then that won’t be good at all for her.
  • The debates will be critical (duh). Hillary can only lose them by having a physical malaise on stage.
  • Prediction: Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will do nowhere near as well as current polls have it. Johnson will not reach John Anderson’s 1980 score (6.6%) and Stein will not surpass Ralph Nader’s in 2000 (2.7%). This will benefit Hillary.
  • The Democrats need to take back the Senate. It is essential. If Hillary ekes out a narrow win but the Senate remains GOP, her victory will be Pyrrhic, as she won’t be able to do a thing in office, including get any SCOTUS nominations approved. And the Repubs will be sure to make gains in the 2018 midterms.
  • Borrowing from my August 7th post, if the race is still neck-and-neck into October, America’s “Deep State”—notably the military, intelligence, and foreign policy establishments—will pull out all the stops to tear down Trump, e.g. leaking his tax returns or other seriously damaging information. The American ruling elite will do all it can to ensure Trump’s defeat. And it will have the media on its side.
  • The best sites to follow the numbers are Sam Wang’s Princeton Election Consortium—N.B. its “Clinton Nov. win probability” up top—and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

À suivre.

UPDATE: On the uncertainty of polls, Nate Cohn has a post today (September 20th) in the NYT’s The Upshot page, “We gave four good pollsters the same raw data. They had four different results.”

2nd UPDATE: Paul Waldman captures the current political Zeitgeist in a commentary (September 19th) in The American Prospect, “The presidential campaign has descended into madness.” The lede: “As the birther controversy illustrates, Donald Trump seems to be dangerously immune from charges of hypocrisy, incompetence, or corruption.”

3rd UPDATE: John Judis, whom I referred to above, has a pertinent piece (September 20th) in TPM on “Two myths about American elections: Bigoted voters and Red vs. Blue states.”

4th UPDATE: My friend Stathis Kalyvas—who teaches political science at Yale and is one of the most brilliant social scientists I know, not to mention one of the top specialists of Greek politics in the world—left the following comment on my Facebook page in response to this post:

Despite the differences and the stakes, I have to say that the Greek crisis taught me a lot that I am reliving now…

I asked him to elaborate, so he replied:

I should write something thoughtful, but to summarize I would underline the social contagiousness of crazy theories, the impossibility of countering populists with reasoning and facts, the strength of the “fuck you” vote, the fact that people with grievances but comfortable lives are perversely willing to challenge social foundations because they feel safe enough to do so. All these makes bad outcomes almost a foregone conclusion…


5th UPDATE: Rolling Stone contributing editor Janet Reitman has a must-read article (September 20th) on the violent, irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton, “Hillary vs. the hate machine: How Clinton became a vessel for America’s fury.” The lede: “Decades of right-wing attacks turned a crusader of women’s rights into a major target of hate.” Three comments: (1) The article focuses on the Hillary hatred of the right but this is, as we know, very much present on the left as well—and which I continue to see almost daily on social media. (2) If the United States had French-style libel laws—not to mention British—many of the best-selling Hillary hate books would be hit with lawsuits and likely taken off the market. (3) The Hillary hate increases my sympathy for her and wish—independent of Trump—that she wins and decisively. The rage of the Hillary haters will fill me with great satisfaction.

6th UPDATE: Venezuelan writer Alberto Barrera Tyszka, writing in the NYT (September 20th), explains “What Hugo Chávez tells us about Donald Trump.”

7th UPDATE: I am taking the liberty of posting the Facebook status update (September 23rd) of an old friend from my Chicago days (1980s)—who has had a long career as a progressive political and labor activist and consultant (and holds a doctorate in political science to boot)—and who is my go-to person for analysis and insight on American electoral politics:

I am still confident. I ignore horse races. In the last two GOOD polls within two days Trump’s unfavorable rating has crept up, while even with her public illness, the emails and “deplorables,” her unfavorables have stayed the same. It is a race as to who ends the campaign as the least disliked by undecided voters, and if she is “less unpopular” undecideds should break her way. Can she win without OH and FL? Yes, as long as undecideds in the other leaning blue states break her way. The electoral map just stinks for Trump. Without gerrymandering we would have a Democratic House. It is still blue, and if those who were blue for Obama, or even 90% of them, vote again and stay blue, plus good turn out from newly registered Latinos and Puerto Ricans in the southwest and Florida, she wins. Peoples’ fave/unfave is becoming more settled, moving only a little, so she should seal the deal if she comes out of the debate as less of a liar than he is a jerk. She will be more informed; all she has to do is be reasonably likable, like she was on Jimmy Fallon, a recent high point.

I agree. The latest polls are upticking for Hillary. And Trump does indeed have a ceiling in the low 40s. Barring debacle (most unlikely) in the debates or some unpleasant October surprise, she should, as my friend says, be able to seal the deal.

8th UPDATE: The Washington Post’s “most read” article today (September 24th) is an interview with historian Allan Lichtman—who conceived the famous 13 “Keys to the White House” (which I had a post on during the 2012 election campaign)—who appears to think Trump may win (the headline of the article is misleading, in fact). In Lichtman’s surefire formula—it has apparently never failed—if 6 of the 13 keys are false, then the incumbent candidate, or candidate of the incumbent president’s party, loses the election. So far 5 of the keys are false, with one hanging in the balance; if that one ends up proving false, Hillary is doomed and Trump wins. The key in question is nº 4: “There is no significant third party or independent campaign”—with Lichtman adding, in the WaPo interview, that the third candidate must be anticipated to receive at least 5% of the vote. Lichtman says that Gary Johnson looks to be there, as his highest polling numbers have been 12 to 14%; Lichtman’s rule of thumb is that that such a poll number at this stage be cut in half, signifying that Johnson will get 6 to 7% in the end. Thus the 6th fatal key.

Three comments. First, Johnson’s average poll number is presently 8.5% at RCP and 8.6% at HuffPost Pollster. Divide either in two and Johnson is under 5%. Moreover, at no point has RCP had Johnson at even 10%; he briefly reached 12% at HuffPost in August but dropped back down. So Lichtman is off on this. Second, a question: should Johnson even be considered a “significant” candidate? The significant independent candidates in recent decades have been George Wallace in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, and Ross Perot in 1992 and ’96. Wallace was, of course, a major political figure of the time. Anderson was high-profile throughout the ’80 campaign and whose poll numbers were sufficient to qualify him for the debates. And we know about Perot (see above), who also qualified for the debates (in ’92). Johnson has nowhere near the stature or media attention of the three aforementioned men. He’s the nominee of a political party that always runs a presidential candidate and who qualifies for the ballot in most, if not all, states. Johnson—who could walk through a busy shopping mall unrecognized anywhere in America outside New Mexico—is only polling well due to the peculiar, exceptional nature of this campaign. Which leads to the third comment, which is that Johnson is mainly drawing potential votes from the challenger party candidate, not the incumbent party’s: his support is coming heavily from Republicans horrified by Trump, not Democrats defecting from Clinton. So his notable polling performance should in no way be seen as a problem for the latter.

Conclusion: Lichtman’s 4th key is not false. At five false keys, Hillary Clinton wins.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: