Is President Trump Really Losing the 2020 Election? State of the Race May 2020

Away They Go!

The great horse racing caller Trevor Denman started his call of every race with the words 'Away they go' to indicate the horses had broken from the starting gate. As the calendar has changed from April to May, I can almost hear those words as the media here in the United States begins its incessant focus on polls, polls, and more polls. Political scientists refer to this as coverage of the horse race. Who is ahead? Who is behind? What strategy will work best for the leader to hang on to his lead until November 3rd? What should the trailing candidate do to make up the ground between him and the leader?  This kind of journalistic coverage of campaigns is not without consequence, as this report shows. In sum, WHO the press talks about matters as much, if not more, than WHAT the press talks about. 

That very fact is one of the reasons President Trump was so eager to hold nightly 'briefings' on the Coronavirus Pandemic from the White House, even if they were often little more than thinly-veiled campaign rallies meant to let his supporters know that he was a doing a 'great' job, that the administration's efforts to fight the pandemic have been a 'great success', and that the world was amazed by how wonderful our testing capacity is. It matters not whether any of these statements are true or false. What matters is getting them televised and broadcast to his supporters. The 'Bully Pulpit' is a wonderful thing...except when it is not. There is some evidence that the president's inability to focus on the facts and penchant for saying bizarre things, such as injecting disinfectant or light/heat into the body, may be dragging down his poll numbers.  

On the other side of the race is the presumptive Democratic nominee, former Vice-President Joe Biden. While Biden has been relatively quiet since all but securing the nomination on Super Tuesday way back in the Before Times (March 2020), he has held 'virtual rallies' and delivered speeches from his basement in Delaware. In addition, Biden has faced allegations that he sexually harassed a staffer some 25+ years ago while he was a U.S. Senator. Both his campaign and Mr. Biden have vigorously and repeatedly denied the allegations, most recently in a Morning Joe interview with Mika Brzezinski on May 1, 2020.



Whether he is lying or telling the truth may never be known. The accuser's story seems to change regularly with new details added or 'clarifications' made about what she alleged at the time. Nobody who worked for Biden at the time has recalled anything about her claims. Of course, this does not mean they are untrue. It only means they cannot be validated or verified, just as the claims made by Christine Blasey Ford against (now) Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh could not be validated or verified. Most people will choose to believe what they want to based on their political preferences in cases such as these. The question here is how will these events affect the 'horse race'?

State of the Race-May 2020

As we enter May and (hopefully) the Coronavirus Pandemic begins to wind down, the country will return to some semblance of normality. The campaigns will fire up, the parties will hold their respective conventions, and celebrate their nominees, etc. Eventually, Americans will go to the polls (or mail in their ballots) in November and choose the next President of the United States. Will Donald Trump secure a second four-year term or will Joe Biden be elected as the 46th President of the United States. It is very difficult to predict six months out from election day, especially given the strange circumstances of 2020. The one sure thing is that the media will talk about the ongoing horse race every single day. 

Currently, the polls show Joe Biden with a good lead in many critical states, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. If he wins those three and all states won by Hillary Clinton in 2016, Joe Biden will be the next president. In a normal year, Biden would be campaigning heavily in those three states but he may not be able to do so if the pandemic lasts through the summer or returns in early fall. Biden also has a clear lead in most of the national polls conducted over the past few months, which tend to be more or less reflective of the eventual outcome in November (within a few percentage points). The only poll that has Trump tied or in the lead is a Fox News Poll conducted the first weekend of April. 

One caveat must be mentioned regarding the polls at this point. First, it is way too early to assume that voters' attitudes will not shift between now and November. Sure, fierce partisans are set in stone, which means most Republicans will support President Trump and most Democrats will support Joe Biden. The swing voters that gravitated to Trump four years ago may be the key to the election in 2020, which is why paying close attention to quality polling in the key swing states may provide a clue to what will happen in November.

Additionally, the state of the economy will make a huge difference for the president. Americans tend to vote with their wallets or pocketbooks. If they are hurting when it comes time to vote, Trump will be in deep trouble. As of this writing, 30 million Americans have lost their jobs since the beginning of March. While some are beginning to return to work, it will be a slow, drawn-out process to get all those people back to full employment. There is a real possibility that some businesses, especially ones that were just getting by when the closures began, may never reopen. The nation went from a very low rate of unemployment at the end of the longest peacetime recovery in American history (2010-2020) to what could amount to an unemployment rate in excess of 20% in just 60 days. The preliminary data for March reflect a loss of 701,000 jobs during the month. April data will be forthcoming on May 8, 2020. When President Trump took office in January 2017, the unemployment rate was 4.7%. By February of 2020, the rate had fallen to 3.5%. What will the rate be in November? It may not matter as the perception of the economy will be formed during the next few months. President George H.W. Bush learned this the hard way back in 1992. Even though the economy had largely recovered from a minor recession early in the year, he was turned out of office after a single term. 

If President Trump wins re-election in November, it will mark the first time in U.S. History that four successive presidents have been awarded two terms in office. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe each served two terms from 1801-1825. Likewise, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama served two terms from 1993-2017. Are we once again about to witness a one-term presidency?

The Political Science Models

Helmut Norpoth typically puts out his model predicting control of the White House around April 1 of each election year. This year's model (based on polls conducted prior to April 1) predicts President Trump has a 91% chance of re-election. Importantly though, Norpoth included a disclaimer that allows him to revise the model should future polling show a crack in Trump's support. It seems as though he wishes to hedge his bets given the Coronavirus Pandemic. 

The three models that base their projections on current polling each show the Democratic nominee with an advantage. Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has the Democrats with 248 Electoral Votes to Trump's 233 Electoral Votes, leaving 57 Electoral Votes up for grabs. Charlie Cook's model has the Democrats with 232 votes to Trump's 204 votes, leaving 102 votes up for grabs. Finally, the Inside Elections model has the Democrats leading Trump by 268-204, with 66 votes undecided. 

Finally, Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist with a strong track record of accurately predicting election results, foresees a very close election that will likely hang on two factors. First, whether a recession occurs during the 2nd quarter of 2020, which is very likely given the data mentioned above. Second, it depends on whether voters will blame President Trump or the Coronavirus for the recession, or some combination of the two that attributes Trump's missteps regarding handling the pandemic to exacerbating the economic pain. The latter would result in the worst-case scenario for Trump and could produce a landslide defeat at the hands of Joe Biden. Supposing real GDP in the 2nd quarter declines by 3% (some analysts believe it could drop by 26% or more) and a net Trump approval rating of -10 (approval minus disapproval), Trump would secure only 184 Electoral Votes to Joe Biden's 354. Apart from one recent Gallup Poll in mid-April, Trump's net approval rating has hovered between -5 and -10 percentage points. Either scenario coupled with a disastrous recession could spell doom for the president. Keep in mind, however, that polls are only snapshots in time. They reflect the current mood of voters who are unlikely to be thinking about the election until a pollster asks them to do so. 

That's it for now. We'll be back with an update next month. Until then, stay safe and healthy!

Election 2020: Manufacturing Consent Amid a Global Pandemic

For decades, since at least the early days of the Reagan Administration, conservatives have whined about unfair or biased media coverage by the mainstream media (i.e., broadcast networks such as ABC, CBS, and NBC as well as major newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post). Some have gone so far as to label them the lamestream media (Sarah Palin) and President Trump has referred to cable news channel MSNBC as MSDNC (for Democratic National Committee). Liberals meanwhile have derided Fox news as Faux News or Fake News due to the channel's obvious conservative slant when it comes to commentators such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. The truth is that both sides make valid points about the coverage (or lack thereof) of media outlets but the reason for the bias is lost on them. In 1988, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky published a book about the media titled Manufacturing Consent, which at its core made the claim that media bias is actually more conservative (not ideologically) than most observers think it is.  The reason for this has to do with the profit motive of the corporations that own the media outlets. Filters are installed that protect the ability of the corporate owners to make a profit, not from the provision of news, but by selling consumers to the advertisers in the form of market share or audience demographics. Ever wonder why that program you loved so much got canceled? It did not draw a big enough audience for the advertisers or it drew the wrong kind of audience.

When Herman and Chomsky wrote the book in 1988, 50 media companies owned the majority of news outlets in the United States. Today, the majority of media outlets are owned by just six major corporations. In fact, four companies control 90% of the media market in the United States (Comcast/Universal, Disney, ViacomCBS, and AT&T). What effect does that have on the 'news' the public receives? For starters, most major news outlets begin to sound alike. Those considered left of center (MSNBC, CNN, etc.) feature the same critical coverage of politics and the handling of the Coronavirus Pandemic by the Trump Administration without critically considering how a different administration might have handled it. Those outlets considered right of center (Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and Clear Channel radio broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh) are seen as apologists for the Trump Administration. Both groups fail to serve the interests of the American people through careful, investigative journalism. Moreover, the American public has drifted more and more apart, tending to congregate in 'echo chambers' that reinforce pre-existing beliefs and rarely challenge their worldviews. Kathleen Jamieson Hall wrote about the existence of a conservative echo chamber comprised of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and The Wall Street Journal in 2010. Similar examples exist on the left between MSNBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. The following video commemorating the 30th anniversary of Manufacturing Consent is well worth watching, especially the first five minutes explaining Herman and Chomsky's thesis.



How have things changed in the 32 years since Herman and Chomsky wrote? How has the technological revolution, the advent of the Internet, and the arrival of social media impacted their argument? As Chomsky admits, the effect of social media has been both good and bad. On the one hand, it has broken down the barrier to information erected by the gatekeepers of the old system. On the other, it has enabled the dissemination of disinformation and fake news with relative ease. Russia's meddling in the 2016 Presidential Election could not have occurred apart from social media manipulation, which is all but certain to occur once again in 2020.

It is more necessary than ever to be an astute consumer of information, to question what is presented no matter the source, to seek independent confirmation of information, and to challenge that which confirms our inherent biases. As Fox Mulder said, "Trust No One" and "The Truth is Out There." Our challenge today is to find it and that is no easy task in the (dis)information age.

The Framers Have Left the Building, Er, Country

A little under 234 years ago in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a farmer by the name of Daniel Shays led a rebellion aimed at obtaining relief from high taxes and oppressive debt. It was the first armed uprising in America since the end of the Revolutionary War. Though Shays' rebellion was eventually extinguished, the inability of the federal government to respond with aid for Massachusetts led to the call for a Constitutional Convention to strengthen the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. What happened at that convention in the summer of 1787 changed the nation and the world.

Late in the spring of 1787, delegates from the 13 United States gathered in Philadelphia to discuss, debate, and recommend changes to the Articles. As the convention proceeded, it became clear that the result would be an entirely new government rather than a revision of the Articles. Several delegates left the convention in protest but most remained throughout the long, hot summer. The result of their labor was a new document, the one we refer to as the United States Constitution. On September 17, 1787, the delegates completed their work and 39 of the original 55 delegates signed the Constitution and sent it to the states to be ratified. The government established by the Constitution was a radical departure from that of the Articles of Confederation as a new form of government was established, which is today known as federalism.

James Madison (4th President of the United States) was the key architect of the U.S. Constitution and defended its genius in a series of arguments written for publication in the state of New York under the pseudonym Publius. Madson's arguments were designed to persuade the people of New York, especially those who opposed the expansion of federal power in the Constitution, that the new national government would not be a threat to the sovereignty of the states. Along with his co-authors, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, the trio penned 85 articles defending the design of the Constitution and addressing complaints raised by the anti-federalists, who were led by Brutus. These papers are collectively known as the Federalist Papers.

Madison, in his brilliant manner, argued that the new government would be no threat to the states because of the division of power that allowed each branch to check the power of the others. The legislature (Congress) held the power of the purse and the power to declare war. The executive (president) had the power to veto any act of Congress and controlled the military. This meant that both branches had to reach some degree of consensus before a bill could become law or war could be waged. Congress was also given the power to remove the executive via impeachment for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' or to override a presidential veto by a 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate. The bar was set very high to ensure petty politics would not lead to impeachment proceedings. Unfortunately, the last 20 years has seen not one, but two politically motivated impeachments based on ideological differences between the House of Representatives and the president. That is not to say the events that led to the impeachment were not failures of leadership on the part of those two presidents (they clearly were and the Framers would have reacted with disgust to both of them).

One should not get the idea from any of this that the Framers should be deified or awarded sainthood. They were fallen, sinful men just like our current leaders are today. However, the difference is that they recognized this fault in themselves and attempted to build institutions that could thrive in spite of the failures of men. Where does that leave us today?

One of the biggest concerns of the Framers was the nature, scope, power, and character of the chief executive. They desired both vigor and competence in whoever would serve as President of the United States. Fully eleven of the 85 Federalist Papers were written to exegete the text of the Constitution as it regards the presidency. In particular, Federalist No. 69 pertains to the character of the chief executive. Critics maintained that the new executive would be tantamount to a king. Not so, said Alexander Hamilton, for the president would have to face the people and win their support every four years to continue in office. Further, he could be impeached, removed from office, and prosecuted in a court of law for any wrongdoing. That alone should be enough to keep him honest, Hamilton argued.

Another of the major concerns of the Framers was the method of electing the president. While the Framers believed in popular sovereignty, they feared the power of demagoguery. Thus, an intermediary between the people and the candidates for president must be designed. Hamilton explains the genius of this system, the Electoral College, in Federalist No. 68. In essence, the people of each state vote for a group of Electors, who would supposedly be wise citizens with the ability to discern among the candidates for president and choose the two (each Elector had two votes in the original version of the Electoral College...one had to be for a candidate not residing in their home state) candidates best qualified to hold the office of the presidency. Each state would have a number of Electors equal to the number of seats held in the House of Representatives plus the two senators allotted to the state. The Electors would meet in their respective state capitals and cast their votes, which would be transmitted to the House of Representatives to be counted. The candidate with the most votes would be the next president and the one finishing second would be the vice-president. If no candidate received 50% plus 1 vote, the House of Representatives would choose the president (an event the Framers expected to happen regularly). The Senate would select the vice-president. The elections in 1796 and 1800 led to a reform of the Electoral College by the ratification of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution.

Our concern here is with the desire to protect the new nation from demagogues, or those who would appeal directly to the people by promising 'bread and circuses' to gain their support. In the early days of the republic, candidates did not directly campaign for the office of the presidency. It was thought to be beneath the dignity of a gentleman to campaign for political office. Public service was an honor to be bestowed upon the willing and worthy. It was a way of giving back to one's country. Educated men built up trust through years of dedicated service in the public interest. In fact, the first president, George Washington, was elected unanimously by the Electoral College and had to be persuaded to come out of retirement to serve his country. The men who followed him each had distinguished careers in law or public service or both. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison each served as president during the first 28 years of the nation's history. Adams and Jefferson served as vice-presidents while both Jefferson and Madison served as Secretary of State in addition to numerous other public offices held. The idea that a man with no experience in government could run for the office of president, let alone win it, would have blown their minds, so to speak. The system they designed was supposed to prevent that and ensure that only a competent, well-qualified public servant could be elevated to the most powerful office in the world.

Fast forward 233 years and look at the system the Framers built. The Electoral College no longer consists of wise citizens able to discern among the choices for president and select the most competent individual. It is a wholly partisan body today. Each candidate provides a slate of party loyalists to the state who, if the candidate wins the popular vote in the state, promises to support that candidate when the Electors meet to cast their votes. Having a record of public service is now seen as a disadvantage by many citizens because technology allows candidates and interest groups such as Super PACs to easily engage in disinformation campaigns that distort and demonize their opponents. Candidates no longer have to stand on their records, they have to defend themselves against falsehoods leveled by secretive organizations, all while the third branch created by the Framers, the Supreme Court, nods its head in assent. The Founding Fathers would neither recognize nor condone a system that enables the election of an individual so patently unqualified to be president like Donald Trump. A president who riffs about injecting UV rays or disinfectants into the body to kill the Novel Coronavirus. A president who then denies he said what everybody watching clearly heard him say. A president who revises the historical record whenever it suits him to do so. A man who was more unprepared to be president than any of the 44 men who served before him. A man who blames his own administration's failures on a president who left office a full three years earlier. This is not a man the Framers would have allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Yet, it happened in 2016. We are all paying the price for it now.

Yes, America, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and the rest of the Founding Fathers have packed their bags and left the country. Perhaps we should consider doing likewise.

Election 2020: Joe Biden v. Donald J. Trump on the Coronavirus, Part I

In the midst of the Coronavirus Pandemic, there is actually a presidential election campaign going on.  While most Americans are not paying attention to the campaign yet, and are not likely to until September, both candidates are going on the record about the Coronavirus and what we need to do about it. In this introductory post, I will recap both candidates' statements on the pandemic and leave it to you, dear reader, to determine who has demonstrated competent political leadership. To maintain somewhat of an objective tone, I will present the statements with links to their authors and refrain from adding personal commentary. As much as is possible, I will present the statements in chronological order beginning in January of this year.

January 2020

President Trump's Statements:

January 22: President Trump is asked whether he has any concern about a pandemic after the first U.S. case of COVID-19 was identified in Washington State. His response:

• "No. Not at all. And we have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s — going to be just fine."

January 24: The president tweeted:

• China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!

January 30: President Trump banned most travel to the United States from China. At his campaign rally that night he said:

• In fact, maybe, we've never had a better relationship and we're working with them very closely on the coronavirus. We're working with them very, very closely. We only have five people, hopefully, everything's going to be great. They have somewhat of a problem, but hopefully, it's all going to be great. But we're working with China, just so you know, and other countries very, very closely.

Former Vice-President Biden's Statements

January 27:

• [President Trump is] "the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health challenge... The outbreak of a new coronavirus, which has already infected more than 2,700 people and killed over 80 in China, will get worse before it gets better. Cases have been confirmed in a dozen countries, with at least five in the United States. There will likely be more." 
  
  Source: Joe Biden, "Trump Is Worst Possible Leader to Deal with Coronavirus Outbreak," usatoday.com, Jan. 27, 2020

January 31:

• "We have, right now, a crisis with the coronavirus. This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria and xenophobia - hysterical xenophobia - and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science." 
  
  Source: Trevor Hunnicutt, "Biden Slams Trump for Cutting Health Programs before Coronavirus Outbreak," reuters.com, Jan. 31, 2020

February 2020

President Trump:

February 4:

• "Protecting Americans' health also means fighting infectious diseases. We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the coronavirus outbreak in China. My administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat." 
  
  Source: Donald Trump, "Remarks by President Trump in State of the Union Address," whitehouse.gov, Feb. 4, 2020

February 10:

• In an interview with Fox Business News, the president said:
• President Trump: "Well, I think China is very, you know, professionally run in the sense that they have everything under control. I really believe they are going to have it under control fairly soon. You know in April, supposedly, it dies with the hotter weather. And that's a beautiful date to look forward to. But China I can tell you is working very hard. We're working with them. You know, we just sent some of our best people over there, World Health Organization and a lot of them are composed of our people. They're fantastic. And they're now in China, and we're helping them out. We're in very good shape. We have 11 cases and most of them are getting better very rapidly. I think they'll all be better." 

February 24:

• President Trump tweeted:
• "The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!" 
  
  Source: Donald Trump, Twitter.com, Feb. 24, 2020

February 25:

• President Trump tweeted:
• "CDC and my Administration are doing a GREAT job of handling Coronavirus, including the very early closing of our borders to certain areas of the world... So far, by the way, we have not had one death. Let's keep it that way!

February 26:

• The president held a press conference at which he said:
• Press conference:
  
  Asked about previously proposed budget cuts to CDC, NIH, and WHO:
  
  "Some of the people we cut, they haven't been used for many, many years. And if — if we have a need, we can get them very quickly."
  
  On whether Americans can make summer travel plans:
  
  "[W]hen you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done."
  
  On the nature of coronavirus:
  
  "It’s a little like the regular flu that we have flu shots for. And we’ll essentially have a flu shot for this in a fairly quick manner… This is a flu. This is like a flu."
  
  On whether there is enough testing:
  
  "[W]e're testing everybody that we need to test. And we're finding very little problem." 
  
  Source: White House, "Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Conference" whitehouse.gov, Feb. 27, 2020

February 27:

• Meeting with African American Leaders:
  
  "It's going to disappear. One day — it's like a miracle — it will disappear." 
  
  Source: Donald Trump, "Remarks by President Trump in Meeting with African American Leaders," whitehouse.gov, Feb. 28, 2020

February 28:

• Rally in South Carolina:
  
  "The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right?...
  
  They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation and this is their new hoax." 
  
  Source: Lauren Egan, "Trump Calls Coronavirus Democrats' 'New Hoax,'" thehill.com, Feb. 28, 2020

Joe Biden's Statements:

The former vice-president remained largely silent during February while the Coronavirus crisis was unfolding. Yet, what he did say was pointedly political and aimed at the president's handling of the situation. 

February 1:

• First identified tweet about coronavirus by Joe Biden:
  
  "We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump's record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency." 
  
  Source: Joe Biden, Twitter.com, Feb. 1, 2020

February 28:

• CNN Interview:
  
  "No one takes the president's word for these things. He, at a minimum, exaggerates everything. And the idea that he's going to stand there and say, ‘everything is fine, don't worry,' who's going to believe that? Let the experts speak like we did in our administration." 
  
  Source: Marina Pitofsky, "Biden Says 'No One' Takes Trump's Word on Coronavirus," thehill.com, Feb. 28, 2020

America, What Are You Thinking? Yours, James Madison.

Here we are in late June of a presidential election year and we have perhaps the two worst party nominees of the last 100 years (certainly in my lifetime, at least).

The Democrats are set to nominate a woman who is certainly qualified to be president from an experiential standpoint but is severely lacking in other ways. The continual discovery of deleted emails, classified information, circumvention of State Department policy, and the questions surrounding the Clinton Global Initiative are enough to at least question whether she should be the party's nominee but no one on that side of the aisle wants to ask that question (except maybe Bernie and his supporters). There may be no wrongdoing but the appearance of it should give everyone pause.

On the other side, the GOP is about to nominate a bombastic protectionist who may well be a racist, chauvinistic bigot. He knows absolutely nothing about foreign policy, economic policy, and little about anything else. Yet, like Clinton's supporters, his defenders drool all over themselves crying out about how he 'tells it like it is' and 'isn't politically correct' as if those were qualifications for the most powerful office in the world. Questions surround his fake university and alleged charitable contributions from his various businesses. Unlike every presidential candidate in the past 50 years, he has refused to release his tax returns. What is he hiding? The GOP leadership recognizes that their prospective nominee is an empty suit and an empty head but lacks the backbone to stand up and do the right thing because they fear the unwashed masses they empowered.

The Founding Fathers created a system of self-government built upon the participation of the most well-educated and respected citizens of their day. Yet, they insulated that system from influence by popular passions and demagogues. We, in our infinite wisdom, have undone their system and turned the selection of presidential candidates over to a population that has the attention span of a tsi tsi fly, the intellectual depth of a dry creek bed, and the judgment of a two year old with its finger in an electrical socket. 

 

Winston Churchill once said, 'Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others that have been tried.'  I suspect after the Brexit vote in the U.K. and watching our presidential election contest he would change his mind.  

 

Thomas Jefferson once opined that in order for self-government to thrive, citizens must be knowledgeable about the issues.  We're not and haven't been for quite some time.  Think about it and you'll realize I'm right.  We don't have discussions about the intricacies of policy alternatives...we have conversations about whether Trump is a racist or Clinton is a liar.  Both may or may not be true but that isn't what we should be talking about.  We can and should do better.

 

Whichever candidate wins the presidency in November, two things are certain.  First, we will have gotten what we deserved. Second, James Madison and the rest of the Framers will roll over in their graves.

 

 

Donald Trump & The K-Street Boys: Has The Train Left The Station?

March 2, 2016--8:00 AM CT

Super Tuesday has come and gone.  We now have a slightly clearer picture of the shape of the GOP race for the presidential nomination.  Donald J. Trump had a good night on Tuesday, though not quite as good as some of the pundits were predicting beforehand.  Overall, Trump won seven of the states awarding delegates on Super Tuesday.  Ted Cruz picked up three wins, while Marco Rubio notched his first victory by winning the Minnesota Caucuses.  That puts the total at ten wins for Trump, four for Cruz, and one for Rubio.  No other candidate has won a state yet.  The question is whether or not winning states matters?  The short answer is no but it is much more complicated than that.

Why Winning States Does Not Matter

The race for the presidential nomination isn't about winning states, it's about winning delegates.  It's all about the method of delegate allocation and compiling enough delegates to win (or deny your opponents the win).  In the GOP it is a case of simple math.  There are a total of 2472 delegates available to be won by candidates seeking the nomination.  To secure the nomination before the Republican National Convention is held in Cleveland this July, a candidate needs to secure at least 1237 delegates.  So, winning the most states should mean the candidate who does so wins the nomination, right?  Wrong!  There are three important factors that help determine who wins the nomination:  (1) Where a candidate wins, (2) the margin of victory and, (3) the rules of delegate allocation.  Let's take a look at these in order.

Where a Candidate Wins

Winning the nomination for president in the GOP is a little like winning the presidency itself...which states a candidate wins matters more than how many.  The simple reason for this is that all states are not equal.  Some states are larger than others and have bigger populations.  Some smaller states have large populations while some large states have small populations.  Winning Georgia or South Carolina is far more important than winning Montana or Alaska.  It is similar to the Electoral College strategy employed by the nominees for president.  States with more electoral votes are worth more to a candidate than states with fewer numbers of electoral votes.  The difference is that in the Electoral College all states are winner take all (except Maine and Nebraska).  Most states in the Republican primaries are either proportional or a hybrid system that allows the winner to take most of the delegates.  Winning in the winner take all states and winner take most states is far more important than winning in the purely proportional states.  For example, Donald Trump notched two victories on Tuesday in purely proportional states (Virginia and Vermont) but only gained one more delegate than his rivals between the two states.  On the other hand, Ted Cruz won in Texas and secured more than twice as many delegates there as the runner up, Donald Trump.  Additionally, states that traditionally vote Republican are more important than states that are swing states or traditionally vote Democratically because loyal states get bonus delegates.  So, where a candidate wins matters.

The Margin of Victory

In addition to the location of a victory, the margin of victory also matters.  In many states, winning 50% of the vote triggers a winner take all landslide for the victor.  In a two-way race achieving 50% is pretty easy.  In a three way contest it is much tougher.  None of the candidates has been able to get to 50% in any state so far.  If nobody gets to 50% then most of the delegates are awarded proportionally based on the congressional district vote and the statewide vote, with some exceptions.  Oklahoma, for example, allocated its 43 delegates proportionally to each candidate that earned at least 20% in a congressional district, which resulted in Ted Cruz winning two more delegates than Trump and three more than Rubio.  Combined with where, the margin of victory also matters. 

The Rules of Delegate Allocation

Finally, the rules are very important when it comes to delegate allocation.  For example, South Carolina employed a hybrid winner take all system that allowed Donald Trump to win all the delegates with about 35% of the vote.  Yet, in Arkansas, Trump earned a similar percentage of the vote but only got 42.5% of the delegates while Cruz and Rubio combined to take the other 57.5%.  As the race moves forward, a few states will allocate their delegates on a winner take all basis after March 15th.  Winning these states will matter more than winning the proportional states.  The biggest prizes are Ohio and Florida on March 15th with 66 and 99 delegates, respectively. 

State of the race on March 2nd

Following the voting on Super Tuesday, Donald Trump has opened up a good lead on his rivals.  My count, based on the totals reported by the Green Papers, is as follows:

• Donald Trump      334 delegates (46.8%)
• Ted Cruz               228 delegates (32.0%)
• Marco Rubio        117 delegates (16.4%)
• John Kasich           28 delegates (3.9%)
• Ben Carson              6 delegates  (0.8%)

At this point, Trump has a commanding edge in the delegate count but his lead is not insurmountable.  Until he gets to 50% of the delegates, the train is still in the station.  The conductor has given the final 'All Aboard' call but the wheels aren't quite moving.  Yet.

Et Tu, Rafael y Donaldo? The Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party

The first caucus and the first primary of the 2016 race for the White House are now in the rear view mirror.  Voters in the two whitest states in the union rendered a split verdict with 28% of Iowans voting for Rafael Edward 'Ted' Cruz and 35% of New Hampshire voters casting ballots for Donald J. Trump.  Meanwhile, traditional Republicans like John Kasich and Jeb Bush struggle to gain traction with voters.  Their brand of moderate, fiscal and social conservatism has fallen into disfavor among an electorate looking for bold, sassy, and sexy.  Make no mistake about it, true conservatism is anything but sexy.  Governing and attempting to solve problems to make people's lives better is not bold but it is morally right.  Making promises that are impossible to deliver upon (a wall paid for by Mexico, deporting 12 million immigrants, banning Muslims from entering the U.S., etc.) are not conservative ideas at all...they are populist demagoguery.  Promising to grow the military while cutting taxes, ripping up the international agreement with Iran, and canceling the health insurance subsidies of 13 million Americans are not conservative ideas either, but they are bold.  Making people's lives worse is not what conservatism is about. 

We really shouldn't be surprised at where we are now because we've been here before.  The extreme right was vanquished and sent scurrying back under the rock from which it crawled in 1964 when Lyndon Baines Johnson annihilated Barry Goldwater by 23 percentage points while winning 44 states to Goldwater's six states (all southern + Arizona).  Four years later the 'moderate' California Republican Richard Nixon was elected president in a close contest after Johnson declined to run and Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles, leaving only Hubert Humphrey standing for the Democrats.  Nixon governed as a social conservative but an economic liberal and staunch anti-communist.  In essence, he was a Rockefeller Republican rather than a Goldwater Republican.  His successor, Jerry Ford, also governed as a traditional Rockefeller Republican...with Nelson Rockefeller as his vice-president. 

The first Goldwater disciple elected president was Ronald Reagan, the Democrat cum Republican.  Reagan preached a toned down version of Goldwater's extremism and George Wallace's racism, preferring to use 'dog whistles' to appeal to boll weevil southern Democrats.  Yet, Reagan governed as a pragmatic conservative who fought to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, cut tax rates but also raise them when necessary to slow the growth of the deficits.  A fervent warrior against communism, Reagan nevertheless sat down with the Soviet leadership to negotiate treaties to reduce the risk of nuclear war.  Through it all, Reagan maintained a good working relationship with the Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill. 

Running to succeed Reagan as the favorite son was his vice-president, George H.W. Bush, himself socially conservative and fiscally responsible.  He governed as a true northeastern Rockefeller Republican who was true to his convictions, sought to use the power of government to improve people's lives through legislation promoting clean air/water and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  More importantly, Bush was willing to break his pledge not to raise taxes when faced with a deficit spiraling out of control by extracting some spending reductions from Democrats in exchange for tax increases, a deal that was instrumental in setting the nation on a course toward the budget surpluses of the late '90's.  Yet, that broken promise would be the impetus for the rebirth of the Goldwater wing of the party.  George H.W. Bush would be defeated by Bill Clinton in a three way race that saw many Republicans abandon Bush for H. Ross Perot.  My own calculation shows that without Perot in the race there were at least 140 Electoral Votes that might have gone to Bush rather than Clinton, enough to win a second term.

When the Republicans took control of Congress after the 1994 midterm elections, Goldwater conservatism was on the rise.  After the rebuke of two government shutdowns, the re-election of a popular Democratic President, and a narrow Electoral College victory by George W. Bush (while losing the popular vote), the Goldwater Republicans were reeling.  It took eight years of George W. Bush, an economic meltdown of epic proportion, the election of an African-American Democrat, and the emergence of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party to awaken the slumbering Goldwater wing.  Yet, the far right was unable to muster enough strength to nominate a 'true' conservative in either 2008 or 2012. 

So here we are in 2016, facing yet another battle for control of the Republican Party, one that may just lead to its implosion.  The Goldwater wing has suffered setback after setback in its attempt to seize control of the party.  Now it has been handed another chance by Donald J. Trump and his populist demagoguery.  In a wisp of irony, Rafael Edward Cruz, the Canadian born son of a Cuban emigre, is vying to be crowned as Goldwater's true heir by pushing an extreme brand of conservatism that dates back to the John Birch Society and McCarthyism.  Seventy-two percent of Iowans and 88.3% of New Hampshire voters chose somebody else in their recent caucus and primary.  The so-called establishment wing of the party split the vote among four candidates in IA and NH.  As of this writing one has left the race (NJ Gov. Chris Christie).  One week until South Carolinians get to weigh in.  The question is, will they help Donald Trump stick yet another knife in the back of the Goldwater wing?  Will the three traditional Republicans be able to garner enough of the vote to take the fight for the heart and soul of conservatism forward?  A week from now we're likely to get some answers.

President Obama's Final State of the Union Address

9:00pm ET

Waiting on the president to arrive and be announced by the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives.  Talking heads are chattering about Americans held hostage by Iran and their imminent release in a few hours.  The first lady and her guests have arrived.

9:05pm 

The President of the United States has been announced and is making his way down the aisle, greeting supporters and other lawmakers who have staked out a place to be in the photo shoot.

9:09pm 

The president is in the well of the House and has greeted Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Vice-President Joe Biden.  Speaker Ryan has introduced the president.

President Obama says the speech will be shorter so some of the attendees can get back to Iowa (laughter).  Praises Ryan for passing a budget in 2015 and expresses optimism to work towards criminal justice reform (applause).

Says the agenda should include paid leave, minimum wage increases, equal pay for equal work.

Focus of the speech is on the future...five years, ten years from now.  What will the world be like?  The world is changing and change will accelerate in the future.

President turns to speak of American exceptionalism.  Indicates we are unique and face every challenge with an optimistic view.  Says economic recovery, care for veterans, marriage equality all stem from the American quest for progress.  The challenge today is whether we face the future with fear or with the confidence we have faced it in the past?

9:18pm

Four questions:

1. Economic equality
2. Technology
3. Security without policing the world
4. Reforming our politics 

Longest stretch of job growth in two decades.  14 million new jobs in 6 years including 900,000 in manufacturing.  Deficits have been reduced by 3/4 in six years.  Says that idea that America is in decline is 'peddling fiction.'
Technology is allowing for much more rapid change than in the past.  Workers have less opportunity to advance, companies have less loyalty, and economic gains have concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.

Focus turns to education.  President argues that college must be made affordable for every student and family.  An education is not enough though, job security must be fought for.  President says the only people who will work the same job for 30 years with the same health benefits and pension benefits are the politicians in the room (uncomfortable look on the faces of many).

Argues for strengthening Social Security and healthcare.  Urges bipartisan reforms to provide unemployment insurance and job training for those who lose their jobs due to changing economy and technology.

Looks to bipartisan cooperation on fighting poverty (minor applause) and making sure system is not rigged for the wealthy.  Says outdated regulations and red tape need to be cut (Republicans applaud).

Says immigrants are not the cause of wage stagnation in America...that is a decision made in the boardrooms of America by the people who stash their money in overseas accounts.

Technology

Argues that we need to reinvigorate our technology industry.  Invokes the response to the fears Russians would beat us to the moon.  Mocks those who deny what they cannot see (Russians orbiting the earth...veiled reference to climate change?).

Announces new initiative to end cancer and names VP Biden to head the effort.

Mocks those who deny climate change and says we have to work harder for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future...clean energy.  Wind power is cheaper, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars, solar jobs pay better than coal mining, foreign oil imports reduced 60%, carbon pollution reduced more than any other nation.  I'm sure this will be fact checked.

Jokes about sub-two dollar a gallon gas.  Why isn't he responsible for that since he was blamed for four dollar gas?


 Security

 How do we avoid nation building and isolation at the same time?

Invokes the idea that America is the most powerful nation on earth to raucous applause.  Points out that we spend more on military than the next 8 nations combined, praises our troops as the finest fighting force in the world, surveys show the world still looks to the U.S. for leadership. 

Indicates the biggest threat to America today comes from failed states, not superpowers or evil empires.  Russia propping up client states, post-war system struggling to adapt to new realities.

Priority #1 is protecting Americans and fighting terrorists.  Al-qaeda and ISIL pose direct threat to Americans through use of social media campaigns, attacks without regard to own lives.  Claims that this is WWIII empowers ISIL, which must be stopped, but ISIL does not threaten our national existence.  Refutes the idea that ISIL represents Islam but is instead a bastardization consisting of killers and fanatics who must be rooted out and destroyed. 

If Congress is serious take a vote and authorize the use of military force against ISIL.  Promises ISIL will learn the same lesson as terrorists before them.  Ask Osama bin-Laden how committed we are to getting and destroying terrorists. 

Foreign policy has to be more than just a focus on terrorism.  We must focus on the breeding grounds for terrorists.  We must work to eliminate the causes of terrorism but we cannot rebuild every failed state.  We must learn from past mistakes like Iraq. 

Says the Iran deal is working as Iran has shipped out some uranium supplies and a new war has been avoided. 

Urges Congress to approve TPP to allow the US to set the rules for trade in the pacific. 

Says restoring relations with Cuba was a step toward gaining more influence in Latin America.  Asks Congress to lift the embargo on Cuba and recognize that the Cold War is over. 

America is strengthened when we involve ourselves with world problems like hunger, HIV, malaria, etc.  That is how America shows it is strong and a leader. 

Promises to keep working towards shutting down Guantanamo prison. 

Politics

Reject politics that targets people by race or religion.  Says this is not about political correctness, it is about our diversity and openness, our respect for difference. 

Argues that politicians who use demagoguery are guilty of weakening America and betraying our core values.

The great American future can only happen if we fix our politics.  Vigorous debates are good for making progress.  Yet, Democracy requires basic trust among citizens.  It doesn't work when we accuse those we disagree with of being unpatriotic or when we listen only to those with whom we agree.

Americans feel like the system does not work for them.  Promises to work to bridge the divide between the parties.

Indicates that the time has come to stop drawing congressional districts so politicians can pick their voters.  End the influence of money in politics.  We should make it easier, not harder, for people to participate in the political process.

Change will not come until we the people demand it.  It won't be easy.  It's easy to be cynical and say that our actions don't matter.  We won't get where we want to be unless we're willing to work for it.

We've come a long way and we have a ways to go.  We can get there together when we see ourselves as Americans first and not define ourselves by our parties, our ethnicity, or our religion.

Ending the speech on a hopeful note, praising the positive in each of us, the selfless sacrifices, because of this the state of our union is strong.

The speech ended at 10:09pm

 

Road to the White House 2016

The race for the White House is in high gear now as we approach the first voting date of the year.  Iowans will caucus on the evening of February 1st and make their preferences known for both the GOP and Democratic nominees.  Twenty-one days out and what do we know?  The short answer is 'not much.'

The Democratic Race

The polls are all over the board although some consistency is beginning to appear.  On the Democratic side most polls show a tight race between Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Martin O'Malley polls a distant third in every poll.  The question for longtime observers and political scientists like myself is whether the polls are valid indicators of preference at this point?  Primary and caucus polling is generally less reliable than general election polling because voters are choosing between candidates within their own party rather than between parties.  It is also much more difficult to know who will actually caucus or vote in a primary because many who indicate planning to vote actually do not.

Senator Sanders has shown a remarkable ability to raise money from small donations and has managed to keep pace with Hillary Clinton, though with a somewhat lower 'burn' rate (the rate at which the campaign spends its cash on hand).  For the year, Sanders raised about $73 million compared to Clinton's $112 million.  On the spending side, Sanders has spent about $45 million (61%) to Clinton's $74 million (66%).  Though being outspent by nearly $29 million polls show Sanders in a virtual tie with Clinton in both Iowa and New Hampshire (which votes February 9th).  What does it say about a front runner and presumptive nominee that has to spend a good portion of what she raises to stave off a challenge from America's only elected Democratic Socialist?  A loss in Iowa would almost certainly lead to a loss in New Hampshire for Clinton, which would spell trouble for a candidate long presumed to be the Democratic standard bearer.  Are we in for a repeat of 2008 with Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton trading wins in a long drawn out fight like the one she waged against then Sen. Barack Obama?  If so, it will be fun to watch but probably a nightmare for the Democratic Party.

The Republican Race

One thing that can be said about the Republican race is that the polls have been remarkably consistent for quite some time.  Unlike the previous two contests that featured outsider candidates rising to the top of the polls and then fading rapidly, Donald J. Trump has been first or second in nearly every poll since declaring his candidacy last June.  No matter what outlandish statement he makes or who he insults his support remains constant.  Sometimes it even grows stronger.  Trump also has one advantage that no other candidate in the race has: he doesn't need to raise money and run ads.  Trump is largely self-financing his campaign, which lends credibility to his statements about not being 'bought' by moneyed special interests.  This appeals at a basic level to a significant portion of the GOP base that is fed up with candidates appealing to the elites in the party.  In many ways, Trump's supporters see him as 'one of them' even though in reality they'll never own a private jet and bathe in a gold plated bathroom.  Trump has done a good job appealing to the most base elements of his party.  The question is whether they'll show up to vote in February?

Currently in second place in most of the polls of Iowa is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).  Cruz has been consistently gaining on Trump for the last month and a few recent polls show him either a few points ahead or in a statistical tie with Trump.  Cruz's strengths are that he also appeals to the very conservative wing of his party, is seen as a relative outsider due to his opposition to most everything party leadership has wanted in Washington, and his fundraising has been strong.  The downside for Cruz is that there simply isn't room enough in an extended nomination fight for both he and Trump.  Something will give after the first few contests, though Cruz is looking strong in the southern portion of the Super Tuesday primaries labeled as the SEC primary that takes place on March 1st.  As long as he does well in Iowa and South Carolina it's a good bet Cruz is in it for the long haul.

Finally, the typical mainstream moderately conservative Republicans.  You know, the ones closer to Reagan than either Trump or Cruz.  There seem to be four candidates in this group now, three who have served as governors in states that have voted Democratic in the last two presidential elections (Kasich-OH, Bush-FL, Christie-NJ) and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL).  All four are competing for the same spot, probably 3rd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire.  If one of the four can accomplish that he probably secures his position as the race moves to South Carolina and Nevada before the March primaries.  The others, though Bush may be the exception due his large war chest, are likely to drop out shortly thereafter.

The fourth tier has no viable path to the nomination at this point.  This includes Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Rand Paul, and Mike Huckabee.  Fiorina and Carson enjoyed some nice polling bumps last fall but have since fallen back to nothing more than an afterthought.  Dropping out of the race would benefit their party and add clarity to the race.  For that reason alone I don't anticipate them going anywhere before Iowans vote.

The Bottom Line

Donald Trump has every reason to feel good going into the caucuses and primaries over the next six weeks, as does Ted Cruz.  Hillary Clinton has good reason to be nervous and fear a repeat of 2008.  Bernie Sanders has a shot if he wins both Iowa and New Hampshire.  The establishment in the GOP has every reason to be terrified of either a Trump or Cruz nomination as either could tear the party apart in a way we haven't seen since Barry Goldwater secured the Republican nomination in 1964.  The good news for the GOP is that it only took four years to emerge from the Goldwater debacle and it went on to win five of the next six presidential elections.  On the flip side, a loss in 2016 will mean the party will have lost the popular vote for president in six of the last seven elections.  That could be a harbinger of disaster given that the election is theirs to lose this year.

The economy, Terrorism, and GOP Primaries

It's mid-November and silly season is still in full swing when it comes to the GOP race for the presidential nomination.  Donald Trump is going after his fellow Republicans, especially Ben Carson, in a full-throated, no holds barred way that has led many to question his fitness for the office of president.  Why it took this long is difficult to explain, though silly season is a time when voters flirt with various candidates before deciding who to support.  In some ways it resembles a mating ritual in the animal kingdom with each candidate hoping to emerge as the alpha.  The Democrats have largely been able to avoid this nonsense due to the small size of the field and the fact that there is really only a single real contender in the race.  Whether it helps or hurts Hillary Clinton in the general election is anybody's guess. 

Republican candidates often like to talk about their tax plans, job plans, economic plans, etc. in an effort to woo voters.  These efforts are likely to fall far short of their goals this season for a few reasons.  First, the economy is actually doing quite well, even if Republicans (and their voters) refuse to acknowledge that fact.  A recent poll in Iowa showed that some 47% of Iowans think the economy is poor there while it is, in fact, booming based on any metric used to measure the economy.  Unemployment is low, inflation is low, fuel prices are down, etc.  In 2012, Mitt Romney promised to lower unemployment to 6% by the end of his first term.  The national rate stands at 5% today with more than 14 months left in President Obama's final term.  One might ask why an unemployment rate of 6% would have been acceptable under a Romney Administration but an unemployment rate of 5% under the Obama Administration translates to a 'terrible' economy?  Republicans are probably better off emphasizing their strengths and this is not one of them.

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris, France and the downing of the Russian airliner in Egypt are key events for Republicans hoping to win the White House in 2016.  National security issues have provided Republicans with a built in advantage whenever Americans feel insecure on the national stage.  This has been the singular great failure of the Obama Administration.  The world has become a more dangerous place under his watch and Americans feel less secure than they did when he took office.  One can debate the causes of the rise of ISIS but one cannot deny that the terror group represents a serious threat to the security of the western world today.  Just or not, the Democrats will suffer the blame for that. 

Will the fear Americans feel be strong enough to overcome the demographic advantage Democrats have in the Electoral College?  It depends on what Republican voters do at the polls in February, March, and April.  If they choose to shun the entertaining but politically inept Donald Trump, the soft-spoken but clueless Ben Carson, and the well-meaning but inexperienced Carly Fiorina in favor of one of the candidates that actually understands the severity of the threat we face they'll have a much better chance against Hillary Clinton.  If they choose not to embrace a candidate who understands foreign policy, knows that meeting a foreign leader in a 'green room' doesn't amount to knowing that leader, and knows how to work within a broken system, Hillary and Bill Clinton will be laughing all the way to the White House.  If that happens, voters will get exactly what they ask for and precisely what they deserve.  That's not to say that a knowledgeable GOP candidate will win the election but he'll sure have a better chance than the outsiders do now.