tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74747691493967159822024-03-05T00:29:53.450-05:00Arm Chair PoliticsMichael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-86704804748276609422020-11-08T08:38:00.001-05:002020-11-08T08:38:16.260-05:00President-Elect Biden<p> With the vote counting now nearly complete, the press has called Pennsylvania for Biden. This gives him sufficient electoral votes to win the presidency. If the current counts prove correct, Biden will have flipped all three critical midwestern states that traditionally go Democrat but which Trump took in 2016: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. (ok, traditionally Pennsylvania is not considered "midwest" but for purposes of voter sentiment in this election, it is). Biden also flipped Arizona and eked out the narrowest of victories in Georgia. </p><p>Trump has refused to concede, citing claims of voter fraud or other voting irregularities. Several critical states were won very narrowly. At current count Biden has won the following states by narrow margins.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Georgia, 10,000 (0.2%)</li><li>Pennsylvania, 37000 (0.5%)</li><li>Arizona, 19,000 (0.6%) </li><li>Wisconsin, 20,000 (0.6%)</li><li>Nevada, 27,000 (2.1%)</li><li>Michigan 148,000 (2.7%)</li></ul><div>Trump would have to win challenges in at least three of these states in order to win the electoral college. Wisconsin, for example allows for a recount request if the margin is under 1%. However, the challenging campaign has to pay for the recount if the margin is above 0.25%. The Trump campaign is trying to raise funds from supporters for this purpose. In 2016, Green party candidate demanded a recount in Wisconsin, which changed the vote total by only 136 votes. In other words, the odds of finding thousands of incorrect votes in order to change the outcome, and achieving that in three different states is a virtually impossible effort.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9ePp9pwGkMUDlXPsx0NLBoV716XvoR00u5D9PwzcpUx8ErBWPuJP52EVFXGOpd421GxLXVIDMzc7YxDYMHA00S8Ua6X5kpP69nDu_jI9C_CDuMIqCbDKbJW3x_SS_XbRS4mPvBSDjFELI/s1148/2020-11-08+Tentative+Result.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="725" data-original-width="1148" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9ePp9pwGkMUDlXPsx0NLBoV716XvoR00u5D9PwzcpUx8ErBWPuJP52EVFXGOpd421GxLXVIDMzc7YxDYMHA00S8Ua6X5kpP69nDu_jI9C_CDuMIqCbDKbJW3x_SS_XbRS4mPvBSDjFELI/s320/2020-11-08+Tentative+Result.png" width="320" /></a></div>Trump is also trying to challenge votes in some states, attempting to have votes thrown out by the courts. For example, some states extended deadlines for the receipt of mail in ballots in response to accusations that the post office was not delivering those ballots before the deadline. Other states made changes to voting procedures to allow for absentee voting that deviated from state law requirements, in order to accommodate health concerns of voters and poll workers. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is conceivable that a court could throw out sufficient votes to alter the results. However, courts typically do not overrule state decision not to disenfranchise voters for technical ballot or timing issues unless there is proof that the legal deviation were intentionally designed to benefit one candidate over another. There does not appear to be any evidence of such activity in this election.</div><div><br /></div><div>The likely outcome of all of these court cases and recount challenges is that there will be no change in the current results. The president may complain and his supporters may protest in the streets, but any actual change from these efforts seems rather far fetched. </div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps a partisan governor might opt to push through an electoral slate from the losing side based on claims of fraud, even if baseless. Such a maneuver would probably require a Republican governor and Republican majorities in the state legislature. Only Arizona and Georgia fall into that category. Wisconsin Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada all have Democratic governors. Therefore, even such an extraordinary change in Arizona and Georgia would not give Trump enough electoral votes to remain in office.</div><div><br /></div><div>Because Biden appears to have a solid three state lead in the electoral college, and because the winning margin in all of the closest states is in the tens of thousands of votes, Biden's victory seems secure.</div><div><br /></div><div>Incidentally, as a follow up to my voting predictions the week before the election, with Georgia and Pennsylvania having flipped in late vote counting. My predictions were correct in 48 States. Only Florida and North Carolina went for Trump when I predicted Biden victories.</div><div><br /></div><p></p>Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-12350661482741600842020-11-06T07:15:00.000-05:002020-11-06T07:15:21.715-05:00Maybe President-Elect Biden<p>It is now three days after the election day and there still is no final result. News organizations are tentatively calling the election for Biden, but with several close states still in dispute. Conventional wisdom, as I write this in the early morning of Friday 11/6, is that Biden has won the election with about one state to spare.</p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin7p75DA8ZHzUptIcCQ-JnDWtUHNmRQTszCorfmlS2X3T06Gp2PMhpHoD_XbXKd_y_F2haHf_6-yBzqe7xXU-V9vo2h_4FxXzzoJ4hQiRzfis5Qe2cuBq8kEBZCH3nAMHRz8FzR51Wgu2L/s1225/2020-11-06_Presidential+Election+Tentative+Results.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="752" data-original-width="1225" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin7p75DA8ZHzUptIcCQ-JnDWtUHNmRQTszCorfmlS2X3T06Gp2PMhpHoD_XbXKd_y_F2haHf_6-yBzqe7xXU-V9vo2h_4FxXzzoJ4hQiRzfis5Qe2cuBq8kEBZCH3nAMHRz8FzR51Wgu2L/w400-h245/2020-11-06_Presidential+Election+Tentative+Results.png" width="400" /></a>Days before the election, I predicted, primarily based on polling, that these would be the results, other than that I also predicted Biden would win Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Trump, in fact, once again greatly improved his results beyond what the polls predicted, but not quite enough to win reelection.</p><p>The biggest surprise for me was Trump's second win in Pennsylvania. This has been a traditionally blue state which, before Trump, had not supported a Republican presidential candidate in the prior six elections, over a quarter of a century.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Polling Inaccuracies</h3><p>In a close election such as this, I would have predicted, as the polls indicated, that Trump would win Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada before he would win Pennsylvania. That was not the case. If the tentative results are confirmed, it was Biden's ability to hang onto Nevada, as well as flipping Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan that gave him the victory. An razor thin Biden win in Georgia is icing on the cake for Biden, but not crucial to the outcome.</p><p>Pundits will debate for years why the polling was wrong once again. Clearly it was. However, until there are more detailed statistics about who voted and why, we can't say whether the error was a problem with predictions in the demographic makeup of the turnout, or simply an inability to get a truly random sample of honest answers to polling questions.</p><p>I had thought that a higher turnout would benefit the Democrats more than it did. While it did flip a few crucial states, it did not have the impact that most experts thought.</p><p>That said, there are still questions about some state outcomes. Trump is questioning the results in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Whether legal efforts or claims of fraud will change any outcomes remains to be seen. However, a narrow Biden victory appears to be the final result.</p><p>While Biden appears to have won, it is far from the mandate that Democrats had wanted. Democrats lost several key Senate races, which appears to ensure that Republicans will maintain a Senate majority. Democrats also lost several House seats. These were mostly districts that were traditionally Republican, but where Democrats had won during the surge of 2018 elections. Democrats will retain a slimmer House majority. That leaves a divided government, with neither side able to implement much in the way of new policy.</p><p>Trump's loss can be attributed to the fact that he won several critical states in 2016 by only a few thousand votes. Those states turned, mostly due to increased turnout. Although Trump received more votes in most states than he did in 2016, Biden received even more than that. What changed in 2020 is that a relatively small number of people, who lean Democrat and who either did not vote in 2016 or who voted for a third party candidate, came out for Biden. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Why Trump Lost</h3><div>I deliberately said that Trump lost and not that Biden won because this election appears to have been about Trump. People were either pro or anti Trump, and not particularly excited about Biden. Those opposed to Trump, however, rallied around Biden in record numbers.</div><div><br /></div><div>Trump did not lose votes. In 2016 Trump got about 63 million votes nationwide. This year, he will probably be over 70 million once all the votes are counted. Clinton got about 66 million votes in 2016, while Biden will get about 74 million in 2020. So, everyone who voted for Trump in 2016 probably still voted for Trump again in 2020. But many Democrats, and Democrat-leaning independents, turned out in even greater numbers.</div><div><br /></div><div>Look, for example, at Michigan. In 2016, Trump beat Clinton by about 10,000 votes. He won 2,279,543 to Clinton's 2,268,839. In 2020, Trump increased his vote total to
2,648,818, but Biden beat him by nearly 150,000 votes, garnering 2,795,714. So even though Trump <i>increased</i> his vote total in the state by 16%, he still lost a state that he won in 2016.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, what changed? In 2016 many Democrat leaning voters were not crazy about Clinton. Many voted for third party candidates, about 4% nationwide, 5% in Michigan. By contrast, in 2020, only about 1.5% of all votes went to third parties. In 2016, many voters were convinced Clinton would win anyway and voted third party to express dissatisfaction with both major party candidates. In 2020, I don't think voters were more enthusiastic about Biden as a candidate. Rather, they preferred a Democrat to Trump and realized that voting for a third party could give reelection to Trump.</div><div><br /></div><div>Many others stayed home four years ago. Voter participation in 2016 was about 55%. This year, it will be about 66%. Many voters who do not regularly vote, did vote this year, again mostly out of increased opposition to Trump rather than out of specific positive feelings for Biden. So the big change this year was mostly a matter of participation and focus on the two major party candidates. It was not a matter of any voters really changing party loyalty from four years ago. Biden did not win back any Trump voters. He managed to turn out non-voters or third party voters in greater numbers, which benefited him at the margins.</div><div><br /></div><div>White working class voters still remain relatively hostile to the Democratic party. They like Trump as an anti-establishment candidate because they see the establishment as working against their interests. They accept the premise that Democrat taxes, regulations, and trade policies kill jobs and slow the economy. Trump promised to improve their lives. Even if he did not deliver, they blame Democrat opposition for that failure and not Trump's inability to keep his promises. As a result, they continue their support for Trump.</div><div><br /></div><div>Because these close elections are won or lost at the margins, the margins favored Trump in 2016 but not in 2020. We have not seen any major shift in voters' views toward either party though.</div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Lessons for 2024</b></h3><p></p><div></div><p></p><div>Trump was able to put together a winning coalition in 2016 by appearing as the anti-establishment candidate, just as Obama did in 2008 and 2012. Voters have never liked Washington insiders. That is why sitting Senators or Congressmen have only won the Presidency three or four times in the history of the republic.</div><div><br /></div><div>Trump's victory in 2016 tapped into that anti-establishment voter sentiment. His loss in 2020 appears primarily the result of stirring up too much animus in the opposition, resulting in the far greater opposition turnout and focused voting against his reelection. </div><div><br /></div><div>Critical to any victory is success in the mid-west. Democrats have a lock on New England, mid-Atlantic states and the west coast. Republicans have a fairly solid lock on the south (with the exception of Florida which always swings) as well as the middle plains states and most of the mountain states. If a major party candidate can come challenge one of those opposing strongholds, that can greatly change the election. For example, if the Democrats nominated someone who was popular in Texas, or the Republicans nominated someone popular in New York, that could change everything. But barring that, the election comes down to Florida and the Midwest.</div><div><br /></div><div>Midwestern white working class voters tend to be very anti-establishment. They generally believe that government does not have their best interests at heart and that they are being left behind. Trump was able to tap into that sentiment in 2016 with his protectionist views and his claims that he could bring back manufacturing jobs. Despite a failure to deliver, he retained most of his support.</div><div><br /></div><div>A future Republican candidate will need to be able to tap into that same pool of midwestern voters. Such a candidate must do so without alienating other groups that were able to defeat the Trump coalition in key mid-west states.</div><div><br /></div><div>Similarly, a Democratic candidate must convince these same voters that he or she has their interests at heart. Biden had tried to express an emotional connection with these voters, but many still saw him as an establishment candidate who favored the traditional big government agenda that these voters distrust.</div><div> </div><div>Both parties need to focus on the mid-west if they want to win the White House in 2024. Although appeals to Hispanics, women, young people, etc. are all important, appeals to the white working class voters of the mid-west seem the most critical to any future election.</div>Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-20074629922143653262020-11-04T05:36:00.000-05:002020-11-04T05:36:22.181-05:00The Morning After - 2020 Who Won?<p> Trump has made the election closer than any poll showed. </p><p>In Florida, the consensus of ten polls on the two days before the elections showed Biden ahead by 2.7%. The election results, not quite complete, show Trump winning state by about 3.5%. That is a more than 6% margin of error! </p><p>In Georgia, poll results showed a squeaker Biden victory of 0.2%. Instead, it appears that Trump will carry the state by about 2.2%. Similarly North Carolina polls gave Biden an increasingly narrowing lead, finish with just a 0.3% lead the day before the election. Results indicate that Trump will probably win the state by about 2%. Neither state has been called by the major news organizations yet, but it appears Trump will win both.</p><p>One can go through all the battleground states seeing the Trump consistently beat the margin of error by several percentage points. Since all of the margins seem to fall consistently in Trump's favor, it indicate that the majority of polling firms simply got their turnout assumptions wrong. Of course, there will be months ahead to diagnose all that.</p><p>As of 5:00 AM eastern time, as I write this, the election is still in dispute As I predicted, if the election was tight, the results would come down to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Consensus polling on the day before the election showed Biden ahead in all three States:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Wisconsin, Biden +9.2%</li><li>Michigan, Biden +5.4%</li><li>Pennsylvania, Biden +3.7%</li></ul><p></p><p>Those are pretty steep numbers for Trump to overcome. However, Trump is leading in the counts in all three of those states: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><li>Wisconsin, Biden +0.2%</li><li>Michigan, Trump +4.9%</li><li>Pennsylvania, Trump +12.9%</li></blockquote><br /><div>In an ordinary election year with the majority of votes counted, one would probably predict Trump the winner of both Michigan and Pennsylvania. But for so many reasons, this is not an ordinary election year. Most of the uncounted votes are paper mail in ballots where Biden is doing considerably better than Trump. Michigan and Pennsylvania only have about 75% of all votes counted, most of which were in person votes, that were expected to lean Trump. Also, many of the uncounted votes in Pennsylvania are from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh: both Biden strongholds. It is possible the states may still swing back to Biden, but a 12.9% deficit is a big one to overcome.</div><div><br /></div><div>Biden could still win the election without Pennsylvania, if he manages to hold on to Arizona and Nevada, both of which are still too close to call. In Arizona, Biden leads by 5% in the count. In Nevada Biden leads by less than 1%. So, the election is still far from over. </div><div><br /></div><div>States are frantically working to produce final results as Trump has called for an end to counting the rest of the votes, in defiance of all election norms. If Biden manages to win in late counts, Trump and his supporters will complain about a stolen election, that they had won on election night and that the establishment somehow stole the election from them.</div><div><br /></div><div>This was a story that Democrats hoped to avoid by having a result that put Biden in a substantial lead that could not realistically be question. Once again though, Trump has defied conventional wisdom, overperformed polling results, and will likely continue the fight in the courts, in the streets, and by any means necessary.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-83676268492969851382020-11-03T16:28:00.003-05:002020-11-03T16:28:59.796-05:00Will Pennsylvania be the Keystone to the 2020 Election?Trump has seen a small improvement in the polls in the final week of the campaign. He has slight leads of 1%-2% in the critical states of Iowa and Ohio. He is within the margin of error, less than 3% in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona. If Trump can manage to win all of those close states, as well as the states where he is expected to win more easily, he could have 259 electoral votes. <div><br /></div><div>Three states that Trump won in 2016 seem to be leaning to Biden: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Biden's lead in Wisconsin has widened in polls to around 9%-10%. Michigan gives a 5%-6% point Biden lead in the polls. If Biden wins Michigan, both candidates could have 259 votes. At that point, Pennsylvania, with its 20 electoral votes, would decide the election. As of election day, polls show Biden with a 3%-4% lead in Pennsylvania, within the margin of error, and in a State where Trump has defeated poll expectations before.</div><div><br /></div><div>Pennsylvania election law does not permit poll workers to begin counting paper ballots until election day. So if the election comes down to Pennsylvania, what happens.</div><div><br /></div><div>If you are old enough, you remember Florida in the 2000 elections, when that decisive state took weeks to turn in a final count. Both parties attempted to manipulate the process, either through the courts, in the media, or in street protests. That process could repeat itself in Pennsylvania in 2020, on steroids.</div><div><br /></div><div>Given the level of emotions and accusations of cheating and unfair election practices, the whole legitimacy of representative elected government comes into question.</div><div><br /></div><div>None of this may happen if a few other States put a candidate so far ahead that the outcome in Pennsylvania won't be determinative. Of course it is also possible that two or three other states are too close to call and that we have both parties pushing their desired outcome in several key states.</div><div><br /></div><div>The sad case is that if the election is close, it may become violent. If it becomes violent, the State of the Union could be in question to such an extent for the first time since the 1860's.</div><div><br /></div>Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-83271219302517751782020-11-01T05:25:00.000-05:002020-11-01T05:25:06.274-05:00<p>What to watch on election night 2020. </p><p>Traditionally major news organization will wait to call a state for a candidate until the polls close in that state. They used to make earlier predictions, but were criticized for having possibly inaccurate predictions affect the turnout in key states. Therefore, they now wait until the polls close. In many cases the outcome was a foregone conclusion. If an election in a given state appears to be a route, the new organizations will call it within the first minute of polls closing. If there is still doubt, they will wait to see more results.</p><p>This year will be tougher to call early for many states. Large numbers of write in ballots meant that it could take days, rather than hours, to call an outcome. When states begin to provide partial results, it is easy to think of those numbers as a good sampling of the ultimate count. This is not the case. Many times some jurisdictions produce results faster than others. Since a candidate doing well in some parts of a state does not indicate how they will do in others, that is not a reliable indicator. However, if a candidate is doing much better or worse in a particular precinct, that may be more indicative.</p><p>The conventional wisdom in 2020 is that Biden will do better in the written ballots. Trump supporters are more likely to avoid Covid-19 risks and go to the polls in person. Biden supporters are more likely to submit mail in ballots. Therefore, you may see early Trump leads in many states as electronic polling results are submitted, then see that lead fade when the mail in votes are counted. Some states, like the key swing state of Pennsylvania, do not allow poll workers even to begin counting mail in ballots until election day. Therefore, the tedious process of counting ballots that were mailed a month ago may take days to count after election day. </p><p>7:00 PM eastern time is when the first polls (I'm going to use eastern time for all times I mention, just for consistency's sake). I'm going to put in bold those key states that are considered ones to watch closely:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Georgia </b>- is up for grabs but went Trump in2016. Biden has a slight edge in the polls. It will probably be too close to call right away. A Biden win in Georgia probably spells doom for Trump. An early call for Trump here would not be fatal for Biden but might indicate a trend of Trump appearing stronger than the polls predict. Georgia also has a tossup Senate race (actually two) which may decide control of the Senate.</li><li>Indiana - conservative home of the VP should be an early call for Trump</li><li>Kentucky - conservative and should be an early call for Trump. Senator Mitch McConnell has faced serious competition here but is expected to win.</li><li>South Carolina - conservative and should be an early call for Trump. Senator Lindsey Graham has an even tougher fight, but is expected to win. An unlikely Graham defeat would presage almost certain Democrat control of the Senate</li><li>Virginia - has trended Democrat in recent elections and should be an early call for Biden.</li><li>Vermont - liberal bastion should be an early call for Biden.</li></ul><div>Shortly after 7:00 a likely tie election would have an electoral count like this (if you see a candidate begin to exceed these numbers, he is the likely winner):</div><div>Biden - 16</div><div>Trump - 44</div><div><br /></div><div><div>7:30 PM has three poll closings:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>North Carolina</b> - This is a swing state that voted for Trump in 2016. Biden has a slight edge in the polls. Whoever wins here will be a good indication for the overall winner. Although Biden still has a good path to victory without this state, Trump does not. NC also has a tossup Senate campaign that may indicate control of the Senate.</li><li>Ohio - generally a conservative leaning state that voted for Trump in 2016. The race is a statistical dead heat here. Trump really must win Ohio to have any chance of a national victory.</li><li>West Virginia - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li></ul><div><div>Shortly after 7:30 a likely tie election would have an electoral count like this:</div><div>Biden - 16</div><div>Trump - 82</div></div><div><br /></div><div>8:00 sees a large number of poll closings:</div></div></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Alabama - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li>Connecticut - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</li><li>Delaware - liberal state that should be an early call for favorite-son Biden.</li><li><b>Florida </b>- this traditional swing state went for Trump in 2016. It is a must win for Trump in 2020. Biden has a slight electoral advantage. Florida will likely be too close to call on election night.</li><li>Illinois - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</li><li><b>Maine</b> - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden. The state has one electoral vote granted by congressional district. One of these may be close. That one swing district it worth watching. Maine also has a tossup Senate campaign that may impact control of the Senate.</li><li>Maryland - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</li><li>Massachusetts - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</li><li>Mississippi - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li>Missouri - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li>New Hampshire - leaning liberal state that can be the Republican's best hope for a state win in New England. Even so, the state is expected to go for Biden.</li><li>New Jersey - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</li><li>Oklahoma - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li><b>Pennsylvania </b>- liberal leaning state that went for Trump in 2016. Biden is well ahead in the polls, but don't expect an early call here. Trump may have a lead in the results until paper ballots are counted. </li><li>Rhode Island - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</li><li>Tennessee - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li>Washington, D.C. - liberal does not describe DC strongly enough. It has never voted for anyone but a Democrat in its history of voting. I can call it a week in advance for Biden.</li></ul><div><div>Shortly after 8:00 a likely tie election would have an electoral count like this:</div><div>Biden - 116</div><div>Trump - 154</div></div><div><br /></div><div>8:30 only one state, Arkansas reports - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><div>Shortly after 8:30 a likely tie election would have an electoral count like this:</div><div>Biden - 116</div><div>Trump - 160</div></div><div><br /></div></div><div>9:00 - If the results in key states here are known early, that should end speculation about the ultimate winner.</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Arizona - </b>a traditionally conservative state that voted for Trump in 2016, but is trending for Biden this year. Results here are too close to call and may be an indicator of the national results.</li><li>Colorado - has trended Democrat in recent elections and it expected to be an early call for Biden.</li><li>Kansas - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li>Louisiana - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li><b>Michigan</b> - this traditionally liberal state voted for Trump in 2016. Biden is significantly ahead in the polls this year. A Biden win here could spell the end for Trump. </li><li><b>Minnesota </b>- This traditionally liberal state has the longest Democrat voting streak it the country. Trump came close to winning hear in 2016. Biden has substantial polling lead and should be an early call for Biden.</li><li>Nebraska - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li>New Mexico - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</li><li>New York - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</li><li>North Dakota - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li>South Dakota - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li><b>Texas</b> - this traditionally conservative state has been showing signs of becoming a swing state in recent elections. Trump holds a slight polling advantage. If the state fails to go for Trump early, that could presage the end of the election. It is a must-win state for Trump.</li><li><b>Wisconsin</b> - another traditionally Democrat state where Trump won a slim victory in 2016. Biden seems to be doing well in the polls. This is another swing state that should be determinative.</li><li>Wyoming - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li></ul><div><div>Shortly after 9:00 a likely tie election would have an electoral count like this:</div><div>Biden - 185</div><div>Trump - 247</div></div><div><br /></div><div>10:00 If the election is still in contention by this time, a couple of states here may be determinative.</div></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Iowa</b> - this state trends Republican and went for Trump in 2016. Biden has a very slight polling lead. This is a Trump must-win state or could presage a Biden landslide.</li><li>Montana - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li><b>Nevada</b> - this state has trended liberal and by a slim margin supported Clinton in 2016. Trump had hoped for a pickup here, but is trending Biden.</li><li>Utah - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li></ul></div></div><div><div><div>Shortly after 10:00 a likely tie election would have an electoral count like this:</div><div>Biden - 191</div><div>Trump - 262</div></div><div><br /></div></div><div>11:00 closes polls on the west coast, which is a Biden must area.</div></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>California - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</li><li>Idaho - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</li><li>Oregon - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</li><li>Washington - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</li></ul></div></div><div><div>Shortly after 11:00 a likely tie election would have an electoral count like this:</div><div>Biden - 265</div><div>Trump - 266</div></div><div><br /></div><div>12:00 sees polls close for Hawaii - liberal state that should be an early call for Biden.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Shortly after 12:00 a likely tie election would have an electoral count like this:</div><div>Biden - 269</div><div>Trump - 266</div></div><div><br /></div><div>1:00 sees polls close in Alaska - conservative state that should be an early call for Trump.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Shortly after 1:00 a likely tie election would have an electoral count like this:</div><div>Biden - 269</div><div>Trump - 269</div></div><div><br /></div><div>=====================================</div><div><br /></div><div>Key Senate Races to watch on election night:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Georgia (two seats)</li><li>North Carolina</li><li>Maine</li><li>Iowa</li><li>Montana</li></ul><div>Democrats must win two of these seats to hold fifty in the Senate. Republicans must win four. Fifty votes give control to the party in the White House since the Vice President breaks all ties.</div></div><div><br /></div><p></p>Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-13992556284509529152020-10-30T06:37:00.000-04:002020-10-30T06:37:53.631-04:00My Predictions for President<p>Election predictions are more of an art than a science. Sure, 80% of state results are a given, but those remaining 20% are usually decisive. This year is no different. Most forecasts point to a Biden victory. Of course, most forecasts pointed to a Clinton victory four years ago, so why believe forecasts this year?</p><p>Forecasts take polls of usually a few thousand voters and then extrapolate the results. They skew their samples to certain demographics. For example, if a poll had 20% respondents of African Americans but pollsters know that African Americans tend to make up 10% of the voters on election day, they may cut in half the value of the results from their sample. This is an attempt to correct for sampling errors in the original polling sample.</p><p>Of course, to make these corrections, pollsters must guess at voter turnout based on demographics. Pollsters often guess wrong. For example, white non-college educated voters turned out in record numbers in 2016, giving Trump a surprise victory. Some observers noted the enthusiasm of Trump rallies and predicted this higher turnout. Most pollsters ignore information like that which was hard to quantify.</p><p>This year, we are seeing much higher turnout for traditional Democratic voters. Although they are not showing up at rallies, we are seeing record early voting, and voters standing in long lines to vote early. We are also seeing record returns of mail in voting thanks to many state changes that encouraged mail in voting this year. Both of those trends tend to favor Democrats. I would not be suprised if there were five to ten million more total votes this year than in 2016. A total turnout of 135 million voters, as opposed to 129 million in 2016, would almost certainly favor Biden.</p><p>Also, in 2016, much of the undecided vote when to Trump in the last two weeks of the election. Much of this is blamed on the decision of the Obama Justice Department to re-open the investigation into Clinton's emails in late October. It made the discussion all about an issue that hurt the Democratic candidate. This October, there were attempts to push a story about some emails about Biden's son Hunter which indicated corruption. That story has been far less persuasive to voters, probably because it is coming from the other campaign rather than a more objective source. Instead, most discussion has remained on the Covid-19 pandemic, which is again reaching record levels, and which impacted the White House directly with infections in October. Focus on that issue can only hurt Trump and help Biden.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC1R0anMCv7UmgzH2shpy4cNy2JyvBzZBwN2dKh3cHlvaucmcj7Fy0ZcHAMxoGDjSBFXx-VLjl5Lc4Ik_FxM99anQUqUeos8QsdSr81NEY4CCU4M2mDMPxD4ub4PVtF3Fyg5avKjbGIzhV/s1154/2020-10-30+My_Best_Guess_+2020+Electoral+Map.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="727" data-original-width="1154" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC1R0anMCv7UmgzH2shpy4cNy2JyvBzZBwN2dKh3cHlvaucmcj7Fy0ZcHAMxoGDjSBFXx-VLjl5Lc4Ik_FxM99anQUqUeos8QsdSr81NEY4CCU4M2mDMPxD4ub4PVtF3Fyg5avKjbGIzhV/s320/2020-10-30+My_Best_Guess_+2020+Electoral+Map.png" width="320" /></a></div>As a result of more determined turnout and focus on Covid a the October surprise issue, I expect the small undecided vote to swing in favor of Biden. The end result is that I predict Biden will win every state that Clinton won in 2016, plus seven other states that Trump won narrowly that year. Those states are Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Arizona. If this proves correct, Biden will win an overwhelming victory of 351 electoral votes to 187 for Trump.<p></p><p>Note that even if Trump manages to win five of those seven states, Biden would still win the election by a more narrow margin. If Biden wins Pennsylvania, where he has had more than a 5% margin in most polls, the election is probably over Trump would have to win the others, including Michigan and Wisconsin where Biden is an 8 point favorite. Trump must win the closer states of Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina where Biden is up 1-4 points. He must also win Iowa and Ohio where the candidates are in a statistical tie. Even with all those wins, Trump would also have to win either Michigan or Pennsylvania to put him over the top. In short, there are few realistic scenarios for a Trump victory.</p><p>All of that said, there may not be a winner called on election night. Many key states may be too close to call, and may take days to count all the paper ballots submitted this year. Trump may show an early lead from in person voting, then see that lead disappear as paper ballots are counted. Democrats are tending to vote by paper in much higher numbers than Republicans. This, unfortunately, will play into Trumps assertions that paper ballots are fraudulent and that the election was somehow stolen from him. If a couple of states are close and determinative of the elections, expect post-election litigation and political wrangling that will make Florida 2000 look like a cotillion. </p><p><br /></p>Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-42379085103635071932020-10-26T06:39:00.002-04:002020-10-26T06:39:45.474-04:00What a Biden Landslide Looks Like<div class="separator"><br /></div>With the Election only one week away, and with more than one-third of voters already having voted online, momentum seems clearly in Biden's favor. Focus on the Covid-19 epidemic has been unavoidable after the President and most of his staff came down with the illness. Undecideds appear to swing heavily toward Biden. <div><br /></div><div> That said, Trump supporters seem more motivated and optimistic than ever. If the level of support in one's vote mattered, Trump would likley have a much better position. But the old one-person, one-vote standard leans in Biden's favor. Many voters who sat out 2016 because they were not crazy about either major party candidate seem to regret that decions and are voting in record numbers. In some states, early voting will surpass the total voting in that state four years earlier.
Polling shows biden with solid leads int he key states of Wisconsin (6.8%) Michigan (7.0%) and Pennsylvania (7.2%). These three traditionally Democratic states gave Trump his victory in 2016. Without them, it is hard to see any possible path to a Trump victory. Overcoming a 2-3% polling deficit was possible in 2016. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's hard to see overcoming a 7% deficit, especially when high voter turnout benefits Biden.
Rather, undecideds seem to be breaking toward Biden. The Biden campaign is pushing for some traditionally red states. Now, this is an old trick. Campaigning in some traditionally red states gets the media push the story line that the election will be a rout and that the campaign has already locked down the toss-ups. Hillary Clinton campaigned in Texas in October 2016 in an attempt to push this story. So, it's not always to be believed. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Biden campaign is campaigning in the traditionally red state of Texas, where the two most recent polls show a Biden Victory. The Morning Consult polls showed Trump leading in the state 49% to 47% on October 13. Just over a week later, on October 22, that same poll showed a 48%-47% Biden victory. Another 10/25 poll shows a 48% to 45% Biden victory. Overall the last ten polls going back a month still give Trump the edge at 1.6%. But if Texas is in contention, the election is already over. </div><div><br /></div><div>There are similar trends appearing in other must win states. In Georgia, the latest poll gives Biden a 47%-46% win in the State, even if the polling average still gives Trump a 1% edge. North Carolina polls show Biden wins in 8 out of 10 polls (one is a tie and one gives Trump a 1% edge). Florida shows the same results in Biden's favor. </div><div><br /></div><div>Only in the battleground states of Iowa and Ohio does Trump seem to be holding his own.
The only state running clearly counter to this trend is Arizona, where a pretty consistent 5% Biden lead has disappeared in the two most recent polls. Arizona is a must-win for Trump but only a pile-on State for Biden. </div><div><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij0psbuHaSWsq99AurN-8Znxq7LGNpCDgVqzNoByLsXlEqgMfiMukO-mOpC3YIuPN1PKh_sBUIu-Ble3fL6-V8Q8iyt6zY3K21EsKA38XHb7ZbgcoFq4OUWtyyDP8o7JiOSN2KEKitaHFV/s1173/2020-10-26_Biden_Win.png" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="731" data-original-width="1173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij0psbuHaSWsq99AurN-8Znxq7LGNpCDgVqzNoByLsXlEqgMfiMukO-mOpC3YIuPN1PKh_sBUIu-Ble3fL6-V8Q8iyt6zY3K21EsKA38XHb7ZbgcoFq4OUWtyyDP8o7JiOSN2KEKitaHFV/s400/2020-10-26_Biden_Win.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /></div><div>If Biden can manage to swing last minute undecideds in his favor, and pick up all states where polls show him within 2% of winning, the electoral map would look like this: </div><div><br /></div><div>That is 413 electoral votes to 125. We haven't seen a victory that lopsided since the first George Bush in in 1988. A Democrat hasn't pulled that off since 1964. If it's any consolation to Republicans, neither candidate after those two past lopsided wins managed to win reelection.</div><div><br /></div><div>For 2020, it is hard to see a path to reelection. 538 gives Biden an 87% chance of winning. In any scenario for a Trump victory, he must sweep all the close states and win one of the three key states of Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, where Biden appears to have an insurmountable lead. Even if Trump wins every state south of Virginia, plus pulls off victories in Arizona, Iowa, and Ohio, he still comes up short by about ten votes.</div><div><br /></div><div>Polls have been wrong before, but this year polling errors may break in favor of Biden, given the unusually large turnout. I cannot see any realistic outcome other than a clear Biden electoral victory at the polls.</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div>
</div>Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-16738227536742452472020-10-20T05:00:00.001-04:002020-10-20T05:00:04.374-04:002020 Senate Predictions<p>With the appearance of a Democratic Presidential victory in November, the next question is whether Democrats will retake the Senate. If so, that could make the next administration's legislative agenda much easier (assuming the Democrats retain the House as expected). </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Changing the Senate Majority</h3><p>Winning a Democratic majority in the Senate will require several victories in traditionally red states. Currently, Democrats hold 47 Senate seats to Republican 53 (I count two independents who caucus with the Democrats as Democrats for these purposes). Democrats must win three seats to get to a 50-50 tie, which would be broken by the Vice President. Democrats hold 35 seats not up for election this year, whil Republicans hold only 30.</p><p>For 2020, Republicans hold 9 seats that are considered so safe that there no realistic chance of a Democratic victory there. Democrats hold 7 safe seats. That leaves 19 States at issue.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Republican Safe Seats</h3><p>Of those remaining, Republican have two likely wins in <b>Kentucky</b> and <b>Mississippi</b>. Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell is facing a fierce challenge, but is expected to win 538 gives him a 96% chance of victory. Similarly, Democrat Mike Espy has made Mississippi a fight, but 538 gives incumbent Cindy Hyde-Smith a 91% chance of victory. Hyde-Smith beat Espy in a 2018 special election by more than 7 points.</p><p>Six other states lean likely Republican:</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Texas</b> - Military veteran and teach Mary Jane Hegar hoped to give incumbent John Cornyn a run for his money in Texas as Cornyn seeks his fourth term. Attacks on Cornyn's support for conservative judicial nominees have not had an impact in this red state. 538 gives Cornyn an 86% chance of victory.</li><li><b>Alaska</b> - This remains a solidly red state. Democrats could not even find an opponent to take on incumbent Daniel Sullivan. Independent Candidate Al Gross has taken the Demoratic support in the State. Even so, 538 gives Sullivan an 80% chance of reelection.</li><li><b>Kansas</b> - Sen. Pat Roberts' decision to step down left an open seat in this red state. Roger Marshall is expected to beat Barbara Bollier, given a chance of 73% by 538.</li><li><b>South Carolina</b> - Democrats have smelled blood in the water, going after three term Senator Lindsey Graham. Jamie Harrison has put up a well funded challenge in this red state. 538 gives Graham a 78% chance of reelection, while polls show Graham with a six point lead.</li><li><b>Georgia</b> - Republican incumbent Sonny Purdue gets a 72% chance of reelection as Democrats focus on the other seat in that state (more on that later).</li><li><b>Alabama</b> - Democrat Doug Jones won a surprise victory in a 2017 special election after his opponent was accused of sexual assault against several women, including minors. This year, with Jones facing a non-child molester opponent in Republican Tommy Tuberville, Republicans expect to take back this seat in a very red state. 538 gives Tuberville a 72% chance of victory.</li></ol><h3 style="text-align: left;">Democratic Safe Seats</h3><div>Democrats expect almost certain wins in three states: <b>New Hampshire</b> (Jeanne Shaheen), <b>Minnesota</b> (Tina Smith), and <b>New Mexico</b> (Ben Ray Lujan). None of these blue states in a blue year show any sign of changing.</div><div><br /></div><div>There remain four other seats that are likely Democrat wins:</div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Colorado</b> - In a strong year for Republicans, Cory Gardner narrowly defeated incumbent Mark Udall. As he seeks reelection in a blue state in a blue year, he faces popular former Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper, who has a double digit lead in most polls. 538 gives Hickenlooper an 80% chance of victory.</li><li><b>Arizona</b> - In 2018, Martha McSally ran for the Senate seat in Arizona, and lost. Then, Sen. John McCain died, and after a short interim period by John Kyle, the Republican Governor appointed McSally to the Senate in 2019. She faces a challenge from astronaut Mark Kelly. 538 gives Kelly a 79% chance of victory.</li><li><b>Michigan</b> - First term incumbent Gary Peters has seen some weakness in this traditionally blue state. Challenger John James has shown a surprising strength but remains consistently behind int he polls. Peters is not expected to do as well as Biden does at the top of the ticket, but still gets a 79% chance of victory from 538.</li><li><b>Maine</b> - In a traditionally blue state, Republican incumbent Susan Collins has won four Senate elections as a moderate, six years ago with nearly 70% of the vote. However, Collins' support for Trump has cost her politically among Maine voters. Opposition to impeachment and support for Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh have greatly diminished her support in the state. Speaker of the Maine House Sara Gideon has a 63% chance of victory according to 538.</li></ol><h3 style="text-align: left;">Toss-up Seats</h3><div>If all the likely elections go as expected the Democrats will hold 49 seats to 47 for the Republicans. Four toss up states will decide the majority. If the Democrats win the White House, a victory in any one of these toss up states will give them control of the Senate.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Georgia:</b> The wildest election of these four is the seat in Georgia. While this is traditionally a red state, Biden is slightly ahead in most state polls. Johnny Isaakson resigned the seat in 2019, citing health reasons. The Republican governor appointed Kelly Loeffler, who almost immediately faced opposition from fellow Republican Doug Collins. This has made the election a three way race between the two Republicans and Democratic candidate Raphael Warnock. If no candidate gets 50%, there will be a runoff election in January.</div><div><br /></div><div>Current polls give Warnock about 31% of the vote, with incumbent Loeffler 23% and fellow Republican Collins 21%. Two other democratic candidates take another 8% combined, plus nearly 2% for the Libertarian candidate. Almost certainly Warnock will be in the runoff election. He will likely face Loeffler but no one has counted out Collins yet. Regardless of which Republican goes to the runoff, 538 predicts a 51% chance of that candidate winning the runoff.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Iowa: </b>Incumbent Republican Senator Joni Ernst was not favored to win in 2014 when she entered the competition for an open seat. Her effective attacks on President Obama and considerable outside funding propelled her to an eight point victory in a strong year for Republicans. Since Trump's election, the State had favored Democrats making the challenge from Theresa Greenfield a close one.</div><div><br /></div><div>Both major parties have targeted this election and have spent record amounts in the state. In September, Ernst held pretty solid lead over her opponent. That lead slowly eroded until tracking polls gave Greenfield the edge on Oct. 7. Currently, polling gives Greenfield an edge of about 0.5% over the incumbent. 538 gives Greenfield a 52% chance of victory. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>North Carolina:</b> This traditionally Republican State has moved to the left in recent elections. Incumbent Thom Tillis took office in 2014 barely winning in a strong year for Republicans. Democrats have targeted this race with a strong chance of flipping it. Challenger Cal Cunningham was recruited because his moderate profile and military background would appeal to North Carolina voters. His wealth also ensured his campaign would be well funded.</div><div><br /></div><div>Cunningham's lead in the polls took a hit in early October, when it was revealed that he had an affair with a female consultant on his campaign. Around the same time, Tillis came down with Covid, which has prevented him from campaigning. With these October surprises the result remains up in the air. Cunningham remains ahead in the polls by about 3%, and 538 gives him a 66% chance of victory.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>Montana: </b>Incumbent Steve Daines won in this red state in a strong Republican year of 2014, and after the Democratic candidate had to withdraw from the race less than 60 days before the election. Daines' fairly solid conservative voting record made his chances of reelection good, until the popular Democratic Governor Steve Bullock opted to run against him.</div><div><br /></div><div>While the race has been fairly tight, Daines maintains a roughly 3% edge over Bullock in most polls. 538 gives Daines a 68% chance of victory.</div></div><h3 style="text-align: left;">What to Watch on Election Night</h3></div><div>Georgia will almost certainly be a runoff, and therefore inconclusive. A Senate win in any one of three states: North Carolina, Iowa, or Montana will indicate likely Democratic control of the Senate in 2021. </div><div><br /></div><p></p>Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-75521887414944846762020-10-18T06:11:00.000-04:002020-10-18T06:11:50.546-04:002020 Elections Two Weeks Out<p>Polls remain relatively unchanged from last week. Biden remains the favorite with an estimated 87% chance of victory in the general election. The last major event of the campaign, the final debate, is still scheduled for this week.</p><p><span>Biden supporters seem optimistic. There have been no real game changing October surprises this year. The biggest surprise was probably Trump and much of his top administration contracting Covid-19. This put attention back on the pandemic at a time when infection rates nationally seem to be on the rise again. This works against Trump, who wants to focus on other issues and his claim that a vaccine is just around the corner. </span></p><p><span>Trump's other hope for the election was his claim of credit for the economy. With record unemployment continuing and other sagging indicators, Trump has focused on the fact that the stock market has retained its value. Even so, with layoffs increasing after federal restrictions ended on October 1, and the failure of the federal government to pay for a second round of relief, it is not clear how much longer the economy can sustain even at current levels, or whether there will be a market crash.</span></p><p><span>Trump supporters, however, remain hopeful. They point to 2016 polls that showed Trump behind Clinton until election day. Republicans have argued that the polls are biased or simply wrong becaue many Trump supporters are skeptical of participating in them.</span></p><p><span>Pollsters have adjusted polling this year with an expectation of higher turnout of people with less than a college degree. Higher turnout of this group in 2016 is largely believed to account for Trump's win. However, even if Trump support does turn out a few points higher than polls expect, Biden's lead could still withstand that.</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span>Trump Path to Victory</span></h3><p><span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkXzXzXD22nl2_XL4dtvGA2IJv3kpMaZZeYiO4cFIYiIYCWZQCC5fhqK9fg4MKy86IqYgVCY7qzz5k5fryNyWmkAMdll7rNb6T4-ofTCL_Thh8A0PXDpLD3imy1S4nALI-yxmaTqajltLP/s1298/2020-10-17-Trump-Win.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="797" data-original-width="1298" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkXzXzXD22nl2_XL4dtvGA2IJv3kpMaZZeYiO4cFIYiIYCWZQCC5fhqK9fg4MKy86IqYgVCY7qzz5k5fryNyWmkAMdll7rNb6T4-ofTCL_Thh8A0PXDpLD3imy1S4nALI-yxmaTqajltLP/w400-h245/2020-10-17-Trump-Win.png" width="400" /></a></div>If Trump can win every state where Biden polls under 50% (in other words Trump wins 100% of undecideds, which are as much as 10% in some States) he has a path to victory, as seen in this map.<p></p><p><span>In this scenario, Trump wins every state he won in 2016, except for Michigan and Wisconsin. He picks up Nevada, which he lost by the tightest of margins in 2016.</span></p><p>Narrow wins in Wisconsin and Michigan were key to Trumps 2016 win. Polling shows Biden up by over 6% in both states, with Biden at 50% and Trump at 43% in both. Those seem like unsurmountable hurdles at this point.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span>Key States</span></h3><p><span>Is this Trump-win scenario realistic? I doubt it. To see why, let's look at the ten closest states as indicated by 2070toWin reported polling averages: </span>Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Alaska. In the above map, most of those states are must-wins for Trump (he could lose one or two of the smaller states like Iowa or Nevada). Polling shows Biden ahead in seven of them. These include the "Trump must win" states of North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.</p><p>Pennsylvania may be the hardest state on this list for Trump to win. Biden's polling lead has gone down slightly from about 6% to just under 5% in the past week. Even so, most experts give Pennsylvania to Biden, even though Trump won there in 2016. Every single poll reported on 270towin shows a Biden victory there, between 3% and 11%. The consensus shows Biden at 49%, Trump 44% with 7% other/undecided. Nevada looks similarly insurmountable with Biden winning every poll in that state by 2%-14%. Consensus polls give Biden 48% to Trump's 42%, with 10% other/undecided. Arizona, likewise gives Biden a 3% edge Biden 49% to Trump 46% with Biden winning 9 out of 10 polls.</p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnHr1_0Q9oGoSCYrrsfFHiG8vaWW07R_Pdhy4S8xdAsq3n2z3lpkLJ7T0ea5Nd5tuc9rhY5F6WpYIkMPspcbjc_wMRItFejYa-5DMG80HGDz-o0H042GW038txkO9EMdO6hPy_9aUNpkED/s1282/2020-10-17+09_15_10-2020-Consensus.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="816" data-original-width="1282" height="255" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnHr1_0Q9oGoSCYrrsfFHiG8vaWW07R_Pdhy4S8xdAsq3n2z3lpkLJ7T0ea5Nd5tuc9rhY5F6WpYIkMPspcbjc_wMRItFejYa-5DMG80HGDz-o0H042GW038txkO9EMdO6hPy_9aUNpkED/w400-h255/2020-10-17+09_15_10-2020-Consensus.png" width="400" /></a><span>Florida and Georgia are generally considered toss-ups. Consensus polls put Biden ahead by less than 1% in Georgia. Traditional voter suppression tactics for black voters in Georgia will probably be effective in keeping that state red. Similarly, Florida Republicans have been pretty effective in nullifying a State referendum to restore voting rights to ex-felons. This could have led to several hundred thousand more Democratic votes in this notoriously close state. Republican efforts to suppress these votes have kept Florida within the margin of error. Consensus polling shows Biden 49%, Trump 47%, with 4% other/undecided.</span></p><p>Even if Trump wins Florida, Georgia, and a few other states where Biden has an edge, the path to victory is a difficult and narrow one for Trump. The consensus map gives Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada to Biden, which would assure him of victory. Trump can win all the tossup states on this map and still lose the election.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">October Surprise</h3><p>Trump, therefore, must hope for an event that shakes up the election and changes voter minds. In 2016, this happened in the days before the election when the Justice Department announced it would reopen an investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails.</p><p>Recently, the Trump Justice Department announce a new 2020 investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. This stunts seems laughably pathetic given that there is no new evidence of anything four years later, and it is unclear why voters would hold such an investigation of Clinton emails against Biden, as opposed to holding it against Clinton in 2016.</p><p> In 2016, much of the attacks on Hillary Clinton, came from a concerted misinformation campaign run from Russia. There are questions about whether Russia may attempt a similar last minute surprise i 2020. There were reports earlier this year that Russian Hackers took emails from the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which the Trump administration has accused of engaging in corruption involving Biden's son Hunter. It is possible that Russia could release emails, intermingled with fraudulent emails that it has fabricated, in order to attack Biden. Russia engaged in similar tactics during earlier European elections.</p><p>If there is still an October Surprise, it will be... well... a surprise. In order to have its full effect, one would expect it to be released this week, just before the last Presidential debate. That timing would provide maximum impact.</p><p>Absent some event that can alter voters by at least 5%. It appears that Biden will be the President in 2021.</p>Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-8743590194238990792020-10-11T12:53:00.002-04:002020-10-11T12:55:16.769-04:002020 elections - three weeks out.<p> Four years ago, I found it inconceivable that Trump would win the presidency. Much of that was focused on Clinton winning Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, which had been solidly Democratic for the prior twenty years. </p><p>Trump's ability to make those inroads, along with capturing Florida, gave him the path to victory. In 2016, many pollsters undercounted the enthusiasm of Trump voters, leading to heavier Republican turnout, and the real lack of enthusiasm among potential Clinton voters. There was a marked drop off in minority democratic votes, not surprising given the record turnouts that Obama motivated.</p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqoqq0K4tioZ6rzm0NcRO4vHBonjaRfrePm32bo2cnJtrXAzePpxVUXIYOcmHI5y1jKDjp5MBMnAFPAe0EmlZr-C3zrBuq4o4HVz6pRfsepGUGD9M_SlpT8lRN7dsOS3xixGcswUzhWkdR/s1286/270-to-win-no-tossups.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="813" data-original-width="1286" height="253" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqoqq0K4tioZ6rzm0NcRO4vHBonjaRfrePm32bo2cnJtrXAzePpxVUXIYOcmHI5y1jKDjp5MBMnAFPAe0EmlZr-C3zrBuq4o4HVz6pRfsepGUGD9M_SlpT8lRN7dsOS3xixGcswUzhWkdR/w400-h253/270-to-win-no-tossups.png" width="400" /></a>This year, 2020, once again seems poised for a Democratic win. Based on polling three weeks before the election, we see a prediction for a Biden landslide.</p><p>In this scenario, Trump loses Florida, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania - all states that he carried in 2016. This map, I think, is the best case scenario for the Democrats in 2020.</p><p>There is an expectation that Trump supporters will once again exceed polling expectations. There is an undercount, perhaps due to many Trump supporters not participating honestly in polls. There is also the repeated risk of undercounting pro-Trump turnout due to Trump enthusiasm.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGZPf5NNhqDx8EzG3TjYPzMHaS3LrbB8I51yXfAjgEfMKH07vQlO9bDRAYxtmw9iWBaw3i4EjpfdM-cHV6FZzrzU4bdDD0oyUOnal4eP7VH2z_rr_yQibQ70NTloH88xyFeCsTKTU1UfSz/s1265/270-to-win-Trump%252B5%2525.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="811" data-original-width="1265" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGZPf5NNhqDx8EzG3TjYPzMHaS3LrbB8I51yXfAjgEfMKH07vQlO9bDRAYxtmw9iWBaw3i4EjpfdM-cHV6FZzrzU4bdDD0oyUOnal4eP7VH2z_rr_yQibQ70NTloH88xyFeCsTKTU1UfSz/w400-h256/270-to-win-Trump%252B5%2525.png" width="400" /></a></div>That said, at the risk of being wrong again, I don't think that will be as stark in 2020. While Biden supporters are not particularly enthusiastic for Biden, they do not have the same level of hostility as they did to the Clinton campaign in 2016. Many liberal voters also regret sitting out 2016 and are not willing to make that mistake again.<p></p><p>Even with a bump for Trump enthusiasm, it is heard to see a path to Trump victory. A map giving Trump every state where consensus polls show him within 5% of Biden still give a slim electoral victory to Biden.</p><p>In this scenario, Biden wins back the critical states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, while holding on to every state that Clinton won. If Trump cannot turn around a 6% or 7% polling deficit in those three states, it is difficult to imagine a path to reelection.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-40518034385369411132016-11-09T08:35:00.001-05:002020-10-29T17:38:14.957-04:00Good Morning President-Elect TrumpI am writing this on the morning after election day, before I've had much opportunity to digest what just happened. All I can say is ... wow!<br />
<br />
<b>Unconventional Victory</b><br />
<br />
Donald Trump defied expectations all along the way. When he announced his candidacy, no one saw him as the ultimate winner. There is even good evidence that Trump himself never expected to win even the nomination when he first announced. He simply wanted publicity.<br />
<br />
He defied all predictions when he won the Republican nomination over many more credible opponents who had much better traditional credentials. He managed to defy all conventional wisdom to win the primaries, only to face the conventional wisdom that such a divisive candidate, who could not even unify his own party, could never win the election.<br />
<br />
Trump never received the endorsements of most leading Republican politicians. Those he did get were usually qualified and half-hearted. All former Republican presidents and presidential candidates boycotted his convention, with the single exception of Robert Dole (who did not even speak a the convention). Candidate Trump had an ongoing open feud with Republican Speaker Ryan. Senate Leader McConnell mostly stayed quiet. Leading conservative pundits supported Clinton, some (like George Will) even quit the party over Trump's nomination. <br />
<br />
Trump never got massive contributions, raising only a little over $100 million in individual contributions. He contributed another $50 million himself. By comparison, Clinton raised over $350 million in individual contributions. When you consider outside PACs, Clinton had over $200 million spend on her behalf while Trump had only around $60 billion. Final numbers are not in yet, so these may shift somewhat. But it is clear that Clinton outspent Trump by more than 2 to 1. Once again, this proves that money is not decisive in politics.<br />
<br />
I must admit that I personally scoffed and the Trump campaign's inability to work with the RNC, to do professional poll tracking, or to put together any serious "get out the vote" campaign machinery.<br />
<br />
Trump continued to remain behind in the polls on election day. Yet as they received actual voting results, it quickly became clear that Trump was doing much better than expected. Florida and North Carolina, which had been trending Clinton, went for Trump. Virginia, which had been solidly Clinton in all polls, almost went for Trump. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which had been solidly pro-Clinton in all polls, did go for Trump. New Hampshire, Michigan and Minnesota are still too close to call, but it appears Trump may win at least two of those states, which polls all indicated for Clinton. Minnesota is the only State in the Union to have voted consistently Democratic for forty years.<br />
<br />
The question that campaign professionals and pundits will be asking for years is, how did Trump do it? How did his unconventional campaign lead to victory?<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton Could not Unite America</b><br />
<br />
Part of the reason has to be a weak opponent. Hillary Clinton came out of a divided primary, contested up until the convention. More importantly though, Clinton has been under attack by the "vast right wing conspiracy" for over thirty years. Some will argue the attacks are justified, some not, but there is no doubt that the attacks have had their impact on her reputation. Even many Clinton supporters see her as a deeply-flawed candidate.<br />
<br />
More than that though, Trump had the ability to motivate white working-class voters in a way that no presidential candidate has since Ronald Reagan. I think when we look closer at the numbers, we will see that this demographic turned out in record numbers, blowing away old state by state models for victory. Personally, I find it ironic that both Reagan and Trump won this group in part based on a message of tax cuts for the rich, meaning the working classes would pay a higher percentage of taxes overall. That said, they seemed to connect with this group on both an emotional level, as well as a policy level. Trump's promise to bring back jobs by renegotiating trade deals and expelling immigrants seems to have resonated particularly well in the mid-west, the most important swing-region in modern elections.<br />
<br />
<b>October Surprises</b><br />
<br />
Some will credit or blame the victory on October surprises. This election certainly saw its share of those. Wikileaks released information about Clinton's speeches to Wall Street, unflattering strategy emails about the campaign, and other information that further soured voters. Probably most devastating, though, was the ill-timed decision of FBI Director Comey to announce he had re-opened the investigation into Clinton's private email server. Even though he also announced that he was closing it again a week later, days before the election, it forced the discussion of the final week to be about an issue that had been dragging down Clinton for months.<br />
<br />
Trump, of course, overcame October surprises of his own, including the recording where he talked about molesting women, and the numerous women who came forward to confirm his activities. That seemed to have some impact on his campaign, but clearly not a fatal one. Once again, Americans had made clear they just don't care if their President sleeps around.<br />
<br />
<b>Long Term Trends</b><br />
<br />
It is too early to assess exactly what factors most contributed to Trump's victory. US voters have consistently rejected leaving either party in office too long. Since WWII, voters have consistently changed the party in the White House every eight years except one (1980). If you exclude Presidents who took office following the death of their predecessor, no Democrat has followed a two term Democrat since Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson way back in 1837. Voters like change and Trump was the change candidate.<br />
<br />
<b>A Trump Presidency</b><br />
<br />
Democrats are understandably stunned and some terrified at the notion of a Trump presidency. I say one has to keep these things in perspective. Historically, much of the country thought the nation was coming to an end when Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Reagan were elected. All of those presidencies worked out well for the country. Many of those presidents did things that the opposition hated, but the nation as a whole continued to grow and thrive. Presidents have a way of rising to the occasion, even if we did not expect it from their earlier behavior. <br />
<br />
Sure, there will be some changes that Democrats don't like. Obamacare will almost certainly be repealed and replaced with something (I'm not sure what will replace it, but we're told it's going to be just amazing). There may be some crazy tax cuts for the rich. In the end though, a powerful and stable democracy like the United States will remain much the same. President Trump will lead one branch of government. He still has to work with Congress. Even though there are Republican majorities in both houses, men like Speaker Ryan will serve as a check on any of President Trump's crazier notions. A Supreme Court will also hold back any attempted end runs around the Constitution.<br />
<br />
I congratulate President-elect Trump on his surprise victory. May you continue to defy the pundits and have a Presidency worthy of our great country.<br /><br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-27798924648022358512016-11-07T09:45:00.000-05:002016-11-07T09:45:11.386-05:00How to Watch Election NightAs a political junkie, I look forward to election night the way some people look forward to the World Series. I stay up all night, watching returns, listening to the commentary and waiting to see when we can predict the final outcome. Of course, there are lots of sub-plots involving who will win the House, Senate, or various Governors' races. The big show every four years is the Presidency.<br />
<br />
The interesting thing is to see what early States may show the who will win the night. Sometimes its pretty much over by 8 PM. Other times it goes well into the night.<br />
<br />
Since the 2000 elections, news organizations have been reluctant to make any State predictions prior to the closing of any polls. Otherwise, they get accused of suppressing voter turnout by declaring a winner before all the voters of a State get a chance to vote. <br />
<br />
As a result, most of the evening is filler - commentary from all the talking heads, with all the action happening at the top of the hour when polls close in certain States. As soon as the polls close, most news organizations will announce the predicted winner, unless it remains too close to call.<br />
<br />
If you like to watch the returns come in live, the key is knowing when polls close and what State really matter. Some states are not an issue. I could tell you last month, or last year that Clinton would win New Jersey and California, and that Trump would win Texas and Kentucky. Some States are just a given for one party or another. Its the swing States that decide who goes over the top.<br />
<br />
Popular vote does not matter. Electoral votes decide the Presidency. Almost all States are "winner take all" meaning the candidate with the most votes get all the electoral votes for any given State. The only two exceptions are Nebraska and Maine, which award one electoral vote for each Congressional District won, plus the two state-wide electoral votes to the State winner overall.<br />
<br />
With many States now too close to call, many of the most critical swing states may remain too close to call for hours after the polls close. Here is what you should be watching though - all times are listed in eastern standard time.<br />
<br />
<b>7:00 PM</b><br />
<br />
Polls close in Georgia, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky<br />
<br />
South Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky should be easy wins for Trump. <br />
<br />
Clinton once thought Georgia was winnable, but not appears strongly Trump. If Georgia is still too close to call at 7PM, that is very bad news for Trump.<br />
<br />
Vermont it the only easy win for Clinton at 7PM<br />
<br />
The only interesting State is <b>Virginia</b>, where Clinton is favored by a good five points. If Trump does well there, or too close to call at 7PM, that is very bad news for Clinton.<br />
<br />
<b>7:30 PM</b><br />
<br />
North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia close at 7:30. <br />
<br />
West Virginia is an easy Trump win. <b>Ohio</b> seems to be leaning for Trump, with <b>North Carolina</b> also leaning but a little less so. If Clinton wins either State, a Trump victory is probably impossible.<br />
<br />
<b>8:00 PM</b><br />
<br />
Most east coast states close at 8:00.<br />
<br />
Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Illinois should all be easy Clinton wins.<br />
<br />
Tennessee, Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas should all be easy Trump wins.<br />
<br />
Michigan is a pretty Clinton-leaning State. If Michigan is too close to call or going for Trump, Clinton is in real trouble.<br />
<br />
<b>New Hampshire</b> also leans Clinton but is much closer. New Hampshire may be too close to call. If Clinton wins there, the math starts to get very difficult for Trump. Clinton is still very much alive though, even if Trump wins there. The night just becomes more of a nail biter.<br />
<br />
<b>Pennsylvania</b> is a State where both candidates campaigned hard. Clinton seems to have had an edge there for most of the campaign. I see Pennsylvania as a must-win for Clinton. If she loses Pennsylvania, she will need to make a great many votes in other toss up States where she is farther behind if she has any chance of winning.<br />
<br />
<b>Maine</b> is an easy win for Clinton, but has one Congressional district with an electoral vote that may go for Trump. Losing that also makes Clinton's math a little harder.<br />
<br />
Also closing at 8:00 PM is <b>Florida</b>. This is by far the biggest swing State. It will almost certainly be too close to call. If Clinton wins, there is probably no path for a Trump victory at all. If Trump wins, Clinton's road to victory looks very rocky.<br />
<br />
<b>8:30 PM</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Arkansas is the only state closing at 8:30. Despite the fact that Clinton lived there for years as first lady, it is expected to be an easy Trump win.<br />
<br />
<b>9:00 PM</b><br />
<br />
At 9:00 PM most of the remaining eastern and central States close their polls.<br />
<br />
New York, home state to both candidates, should be an easy Clinton win. New Mexico is also pretty reliably Clinton. <br />
<br />
Louisiana, Nebraska, Arizona, Kansas South Dakota Texas, and Wyoming should all be easy Trump wins. Clinton made a push for Arizona at one point, but seems to have given up there.<br />
<br />
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are both pretty solidly Clinton as well. But Trump targeted some time in both states for his last few days, hoping for a flip somewhere. If Trump can take any of these, he could very well pull off a victory. Expect them to go to Clinton though.<br />
<br />
The biggest question mark for the 9:00 hour is <b>Colorado</b>. This has remained pretty consistently for Clinton in the polls, but never by very much. Clinton is favored here. If she wins Colorado, she is likely to win the whole thing. If Trump has won most of the tossups up until then, Colorado could be Clinton's last stand.<br />
<br />
<b>10:00 PM</b><br />
<br />
If the race is still up in the air by 10:00, there are some key States in play.<br />
<br />
Montana is an easy win for Trump. Iowa should be for Trump as well. That is another must-win for Trump.<br />
<br />
<b>Utah</b> is certainly not going to go for Clinton. However, Independent Candidate Evan McMullin has been polling very well there. He could possibly deny those electoral votes to Trump, which could make it nearly impossible for Trump to reach the 270 majority.<br />
<br />
<b>Nevada</b> is the biggest bell weather at 10:00. It is leaning for Trump and is another State he really needs if he wants to remain in the fight. Trump will likely win, but a Clinton upset there could be the final nail in Trump's coffin.<br />
<br />
<b>11:00 PM</b><br />
<br />
Until 11:00, Trump will likely lead in all electoral vote counts. <br />
<br />
At 11:00 he will also pick up wins in North Dakota, and Idaho.<br />
<br />
However, Clinton's numbers will surge with what should be easy wins in Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and the giant: California.<br />
<br />
None of these States are in serious contention.<br />
<br />
<b>1:00 AM</b><br />
<br />
Finally, polls close in Alaska at 1:00 AM eastern time. Trump will almost certainly win there, but by then no one will care. The election should be over. If Alaska's three electoral votes would make the difference, Trump will be President.<br />
<br />
<b>My Predictions:</b><br />
<br />
In my opinion, this race has come down to four States: Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada. These are the States that I think are most up in the air. If Clinton wins any one of them, she should become President. Trump must either win all four, or pull an upset somewhere like Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Colorado. I predict Trump may win Nevada, but will lose narrowly in New Hampshire Florida and North Carolina. As a result, we will see a comfortable electoral Clinton victory:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDz0UcRs4WMu2xl0yQ3wdvA6sqeG2MmSfTcfqlTu0gfjRXWn8tCT2KQvcwaB3vYJSeGkVNI-OMiu1piLgnoWcAjsrLaZu-3KvdapQ2uXg-kXKVuw5H7s14wUwQTSAsuObxI2208cw-B0fj/s1600/electoral_map_2016_11_7.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDz0UcRs4WMu2xl0yQ3wdvA6sqeG2MmSfTcfqlTu0gfjRXWn8tCT2KQvcwaB3vYJSeGkVNI-OMiu1piLgnoWcAjsrLaZu-3KvdapQ2uXg-kXKVuw5H7s14wUwQTSAsuObxI2208cw-B0fj/s400/electoral_map_2016_11_7.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-80031688696442934112016-11-03T12:20:00.002-04:002016-11-03T12:20:29.500-04:00Will Colorado Decide the Election?The late announcement that the FBI has reopened the investigation into Clinton's emails has focused attention for the last week on that subject. As a result, Clinton's seemingly insurmountable lead over Trump has dwindled.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Clinton still seems to hold an electoral advantage. As I've pointed out in several recent posts, Trump has to win not only all of the toss up States, but also at least one decently sized State that has been leaning Clinton in order to win.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I see it, the toss up States are, in order of size:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Florida</div>
<div>
Ohio</div>
<div>
North Carolina</div>
<div>
Nevada</div>
<div>
Iowa</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now I know that some prediction sites have a larger "toss up" list, but at this point, I think Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Hampshire are going to go Clinton. Each of them have consistently shown Clinton leads in all polls, usually outside the margin of error. Similarly, Georgia, Arizona, and Utah are going to go for Trump (with the possible exception that Utah goes for Evan McMullan. Clinton made a few ties in those States when riding high, but her recent fall has made them likely red States.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Assuming, therefore, that it comes down to the five States I've listed as real toss ups, Clinton wins. Clinton can lose Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, and Ohio and still win. That's the good news for Clinton. The good news for Trump is that he seems to have the edge in all five of those States. He could very well take all of them. North Carolina seems to be his most tenuous advantage at the moment, and could go for Clinton. But for the sake of argument, let's say Trump sweeps all of them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A Trump victory, therefore, requires that he also win all those tossups, plus at least one state that I just said was still leaning Clinton. Pennsylvania and Virginia have throughout the campaign shown Clinton with at least a 3-5 point advantage. Some polls have been close, but have never swung Trump's way. I don't see either of those as a good option for him. Similarly, Wisconsin is pretty consistently showing Clinton with a 5 point lead. That leaves us with New Hampshire and Colorado. New Hampshire has one poll showing a Trump one point lead, but all other polls in the last week show Clinton ahead by at least three points.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Colorado though, seems to remain just barely out of Trump's reach. Clinton maintains a pretty consistent 1-3 point advantage in most polls. If Trump can overcome that advantage, and sweep the rest of the toss-ups, he has 275 electoral votes (270 needed to win). Another path if he loses Colorado is to win New Hampshire and one Congressional district in Maine, getting Trump to 270. Those are really the only two scenarios for Trump to win.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By contrast, Clinton has many paths to victory simply by winning any of the five tossups I mentioned (and all really could still go either way) to have a margin for error. But again, even if she loses all five tossups, she need only hang on where she has remained consistently, albeit slightly, in the lead.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Trump does seem to have momentum. On the other hand, he also does not have any get out the vote campaigns set up. That can easily cost a candidate 1-2 points, possibly more where there is early voting and get out the vote people have longer to work.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It continues to look as if Clinton will win, but every day I seem to say that with a little less certainty.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-50041678613634145572016-10-31T07:29:00.001-04:002016-10-31T07:39:44.368-04:00October Surprise: Clinton has more emailsFBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Congress on Friday. The letter said that the FBI had found another source of emails that might be relevant to the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton violated laws handling classified materials.<br />
<br />
The letter did not indicate whether the new source might actually find any emails that proved a violation of the law, only that another pile of emails exists that the FBI needs to examine. The emails exist on a computer owned by Anthony Weiner, being investigated for sending pornographic messages to a minor. His wife, Huma Abedin is a top staffer for Clinton, both in the State Department, and now in the campaign.<br />
<br />
Comey's letter itself is really nothing. He gave no indication that he has any reason to believe this new source will show anything new. He is obligated to inform the House Committee investigating Clinton's emails if he finds any new potential evidence. This is what he did. Of course, the timing, less than two weeks before the election has everyone up in arms.<br />
<br />
The Republicans immediately pounced on the letter as somehow being proof that Clinton is guilty of a crime. They are using the issue to pummel Clinton over the continuing email scandal. There is, of course, no evidence that there will be anything new in these emails. The FBI has not even examined the contents of the emails yet, as they only received a warrant to review them late Sunday night. But the final days of a campaign are no time for calm and reasoned analysis. Republicans are focused on the FBI's continued investigation as evidence of Clinton's guilt. Trump immediately seized on the letter as proof of Clinton's criminal corruption.<br />
<br />
Some Republicans think if they can revive this scandal right before election day, it might have some impact on the election. Certainly, it takes coverage off of Trump's many scandals and puts them back on Clinton's scandals. That cannot be good for the Clinton campaign, but with Clinton so far ahead and with no smoking gun, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on voters.<br />
<br />
The Democrat reaction to letter is also overblown. Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid and others are accusing Comey of a crime for sending his letter to the House. Reid argues this violates the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from using their government positions to interfere with an election. To be a crime, Comey would have to have done this for no reason other than with the goal of throwing the election to Trump. Reid argues that the timing of this announcement somehow proves that was the goal.<br />
<br />
This is an absurd accusation. There is no evidence that Comey, a Democratic appointee, is attempting to subvert the election. The timing is based on the fact that the FBI only came into this information a few weeks ago and needed time to decide how to react. If Comey had waited until after the election, especially if some damning evidence does show up in the emails, the Republicans would be accusing Comey of a criminal cover up.<br />
<br />
Still, the Democratic accusation against Comey is a way to deflect attention away from Clinton and put it on the FBI. The media and voters start talking more about whether or not Comey committed a crime and less about whether Clinton created a crime. It is the same "blame the messenger" deflection that they have been using against Wikileaks.<br />
<br />
The whole blow up has created a little more uncertainty. Sadly this seems to bring out the worst on both sides. Few want to get to the truth. Both sides are looking to spin any story they can if it works to their advantage. The resulting public disenchantment and distrust only makes governing harder for whoever wins.<br />
<br />
How this may impact the election is still a question. It may work slightly to Trump's advantage, but probably not enough to change things. <br />
<br />
Early voting is already underway in many States. Early voters, though, tend to be solid Republicans or Democrats, Undecideds tend to wait. Those are the same people likely to be swayed by last minute issues.<br />
<br />
Even a small shift in Trump's favor may swing a few important States. Trump has had tenuous leads in Arizona and Ohio. This last minute issue may help Trump nail down those States in his favor. Similarly, Florida which has been a virtual tie for months may swing in Trump's favor. If Trump wins all of those, we would still have to win all of the other Clinton leaning toss up States: Colorado, Nevada, and North Carolina, to win the election.<br />
<br />
I just don't see that happening. I think Colorado, has remained in the Clinton camp by at least several points in every poll since the Conventions. North Carolina may be a little more likely than Colorado to flip, but even North Carolina has shown a consistent 2-3 point advantage for Clinton for months now. <br />
<br />
Even if Trump wins all of these states, Independent candidate Evan McMullin appears to be ahead in the polls in Utah. If Trump wins all of the swing States mentioned above, but loses Utah, he would be one vote short of a majority, thus throwing the election to the House of Representatives. If that happened though, it is quite likely that the Republican majority there would give the Presidency to Trump.<br />
<br />
In short, there is a path to victory for Trump, but it seems like long odds. Nate Silver puts the odds of a Trump victory at 21%. I would argue less than that, maybe 5%. But again, Trump has defied conventional wisdom before.<br />
<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-18822933729922481842016-10-26T11:16:00.000-04:002016-10-26T11:16:50.067-04:00Entering the Home StretchThe general election is less that two weeks away. The third and final debate did not seem to have much of any impact on polls. The state by state predictions based on current polling show no states have flipped since last week. Clinton remains in a decisive lead over Trump, 333 to 205. That is a huge cushion for Clinton. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNRVSByC400Jh1JB6OV1VZFwI-rGG_g6yQ_s1TW5THkMJz7fiP6UVdHmIGmnF3sFkb1y8fg6YKKRQSSbDJCQAh231MVxh_IO3jGltOyXflseEkYaMlJnrRzkUDipBZ01DsZfX_hYWHkTco/s1600/electoral_map_2016_10-19.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNRVSByC400Jh1JB6OV1VZFwI-rGG_g6yQ_s1TW5THkMJz7fiP6UVdHmIGmnF3sFkb1y8fg6YKKRQSSbDJCQAh231MVxh_IO3jGltOyXflseEkYaMlJnrRzkUDipBZ01DsZfX_hYWHkTco/s400/electoral_map_2016_10-19.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Trump has been campaigning heavily in Florida, which is a must win for him. It is not a must win for Clinton. Even if Trump wins Florida, and three or four other swing States, Clinton still has the necessary 270 vote majority.<br />
<br />
Third party candidates have faded quickly. Jill Stein with the Green Party never seemed to catch on with Sanders supporters. The Clinton campaign did a great job discrediting her with a few of her fringe issues, like vaccinations. Gary Johnson got a look and will win significant double digit percentages in some States, but is not likely to win any electoral votes. His epic fails on foreign policy questions seem to have turned off many voters looking for a viable alternative.<br />
<br />
There is one candidate, independent <a href="https://www.evanmcmullin.com/">Evan McMullin</a>, who seems to be making waves now. He is running on a traditionally conservative platform, that seems to resonate with voters who cannot stand Clinton and are appalled by Trump. Some polls have McMullin winning Utah. He seems to be doing well in Idaho as well. Although only on the ballot in eleven States, he may end up acting as a spoiler, and possibly may win a few electoral votes. <br />
<br />
Even so, none of the third parties seem to have a meaningful impact on Clinton's decisive lead over Trump. Even if McMullin wins one or two states, those come from Trump's column anyway. They would only make his defeat larger. Numbers seem to be solidifying at this point. Absent some massive surprise, it seems over.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.vote.org/early-voting-calendar/">Early voting</a> has already started in 31 States. Even if something radically changes voter positions, many have already locked in their votes. Candidates are focused on getting their voters to the polls.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Donald Trump took time off from campaigning this morning to attend the ribbon cutting of his new hotel in Washington, DC. Possible reasons for doing so:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>he thinks this will get more publicity for him than yet another political speech,</li>
<li>it focuses voters on his work as a private property entrepreneur,</li>
<li>he realizes, he is going to lose the election and needs to focus on business, or </li>
<li>it is a sign that his entire campaign has been one long publicity stunt and that he cares much more about his real estate business.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Like any good movie super villain, even after you think he is dead, he rises once more to make that final strike. Trump's final strike may be is "the election is rigged" gambit. No, it won't help him win, but it will sow discord and distrust for years to come. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The notion that he will not accept the results of the election is more pathetic than horrifying. It would be horrifying if he had an army behind him to overthrow the election results. But the US military is not likely to overthrow the elected leader, even if the top officers may not be happy with the newly elected Commander in Chief. Trump may throw a temper tantrum, but their is zero chance it will have any impact on the transition of power.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That said, stirring up millions of disappointed voters and encouraging them to believe that the elections were stolen, rather than the fact that a majority of their fellow Americans really do disagree with them, is a dangerous notion. It may lead to some violence. It will poison any attempts to get the parties to work together over the next few years. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Trump seems to hold to the notion that any publicity is good publicity. If he really did this for publicity, I have a hard time seeing how to will work to his personal benefit. Trump's main customer base for his luxury hotels and real estate has been upper income college educated elites. Most of those people have soured on Trump based on his antics during this election season. I would think this would impact negatively, any desire to buy Trump products or stay at Trump properties. On the other hand, perhaps most of his income now comes from his reality TV shows. If he returns to those, his candidacy may increase his audience among his white working class base, who knows?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But I digress. My main point to make today is that the Presidential election is essentially over. The campaigns will continue to get out the vote for the next two weeks. Clinton has a stronger ground game. Although she cannot turn out black voters the way Obama did, she has a solid get out the vote campaign. With a weak and highly negative opponent, and the failure of any third party to catch fire, Clinton's path to victory seems assured.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The big question now is how the Presidential race will affect Congress. Clinton seems focused now on getting more Senators and members of Congress elected. She knows that a Republican majority in the House and Senate will mean her agenda hits a brick wall. Overcoming substantial majorities in both houses is still a difficult task.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Six years ago, two years into Obama's first term, the Republicans won a landslide victory in Congress. As such, most of the Senators up for reelection this year are Republicans. No incumbent Democrats seem to have any chance of losing this year, though the open seat in Nevada (currently held by retiring Harry Reid) is in serious contention. At least two seats seem likely to flip from Republican to Democrat (Wisconsin and Illinois). Republican seats in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Missouri, and Florida seem up for grabs this year. Of those, Democrats are on track to pick up another two: New Hampshire and Illinois. They may also win an open seat in Indiana currently under Republican control. If they can win those and keep Nevada, they get 50 Senators, with VP Tim Kaine breaking ties. It is a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless. Even so, Republicans can tie up things as a minority with more than 40 votes. It remains a recipe for gridlock.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The House of Representatives is much more likely to remain in Republican hands. Currently, the Republicans hold 247 seats, 27 seats above the 218 majority. There are only 21 seats considered toss ups at this point, 17 of which are Republican incumbent seats. Even if all those go to the Democrats (unlikely) Republicans would still hold a 10 seat majority. Therefore, President Clinton can expect to have at least one half of the Congress in Republican hands. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-85120512181185629502016-10-19T11:55:00.000-04:002016-10-19T11:55:10.142-04:00On the eve of the third debateOk, technically, I'm not posting this on the eve of the last Presidential debate. I'm posting it on the morning of the debate. I wanted to establish where things are before the candidates give their last high profile pitch.<br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, after Trump's denial that he actually did the things he bragged about to Billy Bush, at least a half dozen women have come forward to say that Trump did those things to them. This does not seem to have hurt Trump's numbers since the initial crash following the release of the tape.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifpQgzDx06xodiOHktudO9JYOfj9t5sCrUHtU8Tgh-nFgAAgugCi2zNRIOkJ81dDq0cuuz5aot3-29-O8rWJJ8DLafJxu4u5TPN6rp3MUQoYxs9b18R-R0KDFDQAN8v4GxUigbdILaR9YD/s1600/electoral_map_2016_10-19.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifpQgzDx06xodiOHktudO9JYOfj9t5sCrUHtU8Tgh-nFgAAgugCi2zNRIOkJ81dDq0cuuz5aot3-29-O8rWJJ8DLafJxu4u5TPN6rp3MUQoYxs9b18R-R0KDFDQAN8v4GxUigbdILaR9YD/s400/electoral_map_2016_10-19.jpg" width="400" /></a>Even so, if the election were held today, Clinton would almost certainly win.<br />
<br />
Shockingly, Arizona is now trending blue, with Georgia and Utah also in contention. Clinton is even running some ads in Texas, although I think that is a dream. <br />
<br />
Ohio has moved back into the red category. However, I expect Clinton to win there. Ohio, which started early voting a couple of weeks ago, gives a benefit to a candidate with a strong get out the vote (GOTV) campaign. Clinton has one, Trump has none, literally none. He has made no effort to establish a GOTV operation in any state. On top of that Trump recently <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/10/17/donald-trump-severs-ties-with-ohio-republican-chairman-matt-borges-then-attacks-him-in-letter-to-press/">attacked</a> the Ohio Republican Chair, meaning any independent party GOTV effort is likely off the table as well. As a result, Clinton may have an advantage in Ohio of 2-3% beyond what the polls indicate. Since Trump is only up by less than 1%, Clinton could win there.<br />
<br />
But even if Trump can win Ohio, and Arizona, and North Carolina, and Nevada, and Florida, he still loses. Here is another map without giving Clinton any states still in serious contention:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuVaNfg5lVj5K6-XPqQFpZUeM6bJiNQVGXPbufVywWXuqpB4xHsjtbej9dpjPxa_W50Wtq5vif9nRdeuHLxLuM786CzzbkvcVcQys8iUXoqDIU9NazSkMq0Bzk4mhT0-1WFdMi14ykQtCu/s1600/electoral_map_2016_10-19a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuVaNfg5lVj5K6-XPqQFpZUeM6bJiNQVGXPbufVywWXuqpB4xHsjtbej9dpjPxa_W50Wtq5vif9nRdeuHLxLuM786CzzbkvcVcQys8iUXoqDIU9NazSkMq0Bzk4mhT0-1WFdMi14ykQtCu/s320/electoral_map_2016_10-19a.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The only two States I've listed as blue here that there is really any debate about are New Hampshire and Wisconsin. These are both reliably Blue States in the last six elections and where Clinton is up in most polls by a good five points. As such, I don't really consider them in contention. <br />
<br />
Even if Trump won all the gray states, Clinton still has the electoral votes for a victory. Absent some massive October surprise, there is no realistic path to victory for Trump.<br />
<br />
Speaking of October surprises, the Trump campaign seemed to be banking on the Wikileaks releases to turn things around. Unfortunately, the releases, mostly emails from party insiders, have created little outrage. Yes, Democratic partisan professionals often have a poor view of Republicans and sometimes make fun of people in emails. Yes, Hillary gave speeches to Wall Street Executives where she pandered to them in generalities while committing to nothing -- yawn. There is no smoking gun showing illegal activity, nor would I expect one given the level of scrutiny that all her behavior has already received.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, Trump's Grope-gate had taken up most of the air time. People seem far more focused on that for now. <br />
<br />
It could be that Wikileaks has more shoes to drop, but the Ecuador Embassy has cut off Assange. Whether that will prevent or slow any releases remains to be seen. Ironically for me, cutting off Assange annoys me more than anything he might release. It seems clear to me that the block was made under pressure, most likely from the US Government. Why hasn't Watergate, and numerous scandals since, taught politicians that the cover up is usually worse than the crime? Let the releases come and let the voters yawn at them.<br />
<br />
Numerous pundits have pointed out they hypocrisy of conservatives who support Trump after condemning Bill Clinton for his escapades. I find it hypocritical too, though I also find the reverse to be hypocritical: former Clinton supporters saying Trump is ineligible based on his wandering hands (or tongue, or whatever -- ew!). <br />
<br />
Personally, I think Bill Clinton was one of the better Presidents we have had in recent years, even though I also disagreed with many of his policies. Despite his personal issues he kept the Country in better condition than his predecessor or successor (not that that is a very high bar). If I had a daughter, I would not want her alone in a room with Clinton, but I also would not mind him as President again. <br />
<br />
I would make the similar argument for Trump, except for the fact that there are numerous other issues that I think make him ineligible as a serious leader. In short, if this was the only thing that people had against Trump, and he supported all the policy positions I liked, it would not prevent me from voting for him. I'm sorry, but a personally flawed candidate with the right policy positions and abilities is better than a personally pure candidate that does not have the ability nor the right policy positions.<br />
<br />
All that said, I think Trump has numerous character flaws of which his treatment of women is only one small part. His callousness toward refugees, his tendency to categorize and treat people based on race, religion, or ethnicity, (as well as sex) all contribute to my view that he would be a horrible leader.<br />
<br />
But like most of America, I don't see Hillary Clinton as a much better alternative. Much of that for me is policy. She wants a larger domestic bureaucracy. She does not seem motivated to try any new or different solutions, just more money into the same programs that accomplish nothing. Her main motivation seems to be pandering to interest groups. She reminds me a lot of Walter Mondale. On foreign policy, I am convinced she will get the US into a war, almost certainly in the mid-east, but possibly also with China or Russia as they continue to push the US. Since it appears she will win, I hope I am wrong about this, but cannot in good conscience support her.<br />
<br />
In many of my posts, I look at polls and comment "if the election were held today..." The reality is the election has already begun. Many States have early voting. Many people have already submitted their ballots. Even small polling changes at this point may not have as large an impact in States where early voting is well underway.<br />
<br />
The one remaining issue that brings uncertainty is voter fraud. I'm not talking about the nonsense that Trump is spouting, but the ability of hackers to sow confusion on election day by messing with registered voter rolls, or possibly even change results. I know there are numerous protections that prevent this, but if some states are called for Trump, then backup tapes show fraud and prove the Clinton actually won, imagine the discord that such an outcome would create. Hopefully, these fears will be allayed. But trusting in government competence rarely works out well.<br />
<br />
Tonight's debate will likely solidify everyone's existing views. Traditionally the final 2-3 weeks focus on energizing supporters and getting out the vote. Trump can energize his supporters, but I think Clinton will do a better job in turning out people to vote.<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-5739680014664035912016-10-10T11:35:00.000-04:002016-10-10T11:46:34.627-04:00Second Clinton-Trump Debate<b>The Second Presidential Debate:</b><br />
<br />
Last night Clinton and Trump met again in their "town meeting" style debate, where voters get to ask questions directly to the candidates. The format itself is rather silly since the moderators know the questions each person asks ahead of time. They simply call on the person they want to ask the question they think should go next.<br />
<br />
Also, the audience was supposed to be comprised of undecided voters. Anyone really think the Muslim woman was still undecided? I can't imagine that was the case.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Bragging about Sex:</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Of course, the big issue for the night was how Trump would handle the revelation of an audio recording (I'm not sure why the media keeps calling it a video) bragging about his sexual exploits, perhaps even a sexual assault, on an unnamed married woman.<br />
<br />
Trump finally seems to have decided that the theory of "any publicity is good publicity" has its limits, and for the first time apologized. He also denied actually doing those things he bragged about doing in the recording. It will be interesting to see if anyone can find the actual victim and get her to weigh in.<br />
<br />
Anyone who is shocked or even surprised to discover that Trump is an adulterer who objectifies women must already have some serious head-in-sand issues already. There is ample evidence even before this recording became public. Still, the recording does seem to impact Trump's numbers, which continue to plummet. I think Trump handled the issue as well as anyone could, which is to say this is simply not an issue that can be spun or avoided. <br />
<br />
<b>Clinton Wall Street Speeches</b><br />
<br />
One issue took a secondary role was the release of Clinton's comments to Wall Street firms in private speeches she had given. Wikileaks revealed the information on Friday based on emails hacked from Clinton confidant, John Podesta. Clinton's blatant hypocrisy between what she was telling Wall Street and what she was saying to Sanders supporters is classic Clinton double-speak. It could have hurt her hard had not the Trump sex recording been released the next day. That really smells to me like the Clinton campaign must have been holding that recording in their pocket, waiting for just such an occasion to use it. Some reporters have looked into that possibility, but so far it appears that the Clinton campaign has no trail leading back to them over the release. If the campaign did have any role, I give them kudos for pulling it off without it leading back to them. It gives me confidence that the political operation is not a bunch of bumbling amateurs like the other side.<br />
<br />
Clinton did get a question about her speeches. I think the parried it well, going into a talk about how she was referring to something Lincoln did as portrayed in the Spielberg movie about his presidency. She successfully ignored her blatant hypocrisy over assuring Wall Street that she had their back while talking up anti-Wall Street reforms in public. But the story is classic Clinton. She did not actually make any explicit promises to each group that conflicted with one another. Rather, she used vague language to imply to each that she was on their side, without actually committing to anything.<br />
<br />
Such behavior is frustrating to voters, which is probably why Trump's blunt speaking style during the primaries got so much support. But in the end, Clinton's vague innuendos in her public and private speeches are not nearly as interesting as Trump discussing his sexual assaults on women. Trump tried to condemn Clinton for bringing Lincoln into her answer. But since she really was referencing Lincoln in her Wall Street speech, Trump's attack during the debate just seemed pathetic.<br />
<br />
<b>Send Hillary to Jail</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Trump also decided to double down on the "lock her up" theme from the Convention. He promised a special prosecutor to go after Clinton once he was elected. Presumably, the special prosecutor would go after Clinton's use of a private email server for confidential documents, or who knows what.<br />
<br />
First, a special prosecutor is normally used to investigate one's own administration to avoid a conflict of interest. Using one to go after a political opponent, when you have a perfectly good Department of Justice just sitting there, seems kind of pointless. <br />
<br />
Beyond that though, as I've said before, imprisoning one's political opponents is something we seen in pseudo-democracies in the mid-east or Latin America. It is a REALLY bad precedent, even if the opponent did violate the law. It's one reasons many countries have limited immunity for elected officials. If an official can go to jail after losing power, it encourages them to stay in power by any means necessary, even trashing the Democratic institutions that run the country. We really don't want that. It is one reason why President Obama did not pursue charges against Bush and Chaney for their use of torture. Prosecuting political opponents is not just bad form, it threatens our system of democracy. That Trump still does not get this point is reason enough to run from his candidacy.<br />
<br />
<b>Trump Sets off Bimbo Eruptions</b><br />
<br />
Trump did seem much more subdued at the debate last night, which probably made sense for him. He did lash out at Clinton for her husband's affairs. Trump's decision to bring Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathy Shelton to the debate seemed rather ham handed. The first three women allegedly had affairs with her husband Bill. Broaddrick belatedly accused Bill Clinton of rape. The fourth woman, Shelton was the victim of a rape by a third party whom Hillary Clinton represented at trial when she had a private law practice.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that if sexual assault is the issue on which you are going to vote, you must decide whether you want a presidential spouse who has done such things, or the the President himself. Sadly those seem to be our choices, unless you are like me and voting for a third party. Personally, I think Bill Clinton was generally a good President. If I had a daughter, I would not want her in a room alone with him. But if a second Clinton Administration is much like the first: a balanced the budget, a booming economy, free trade, and keeping out of foreign wars, I'll take it.<br />
<br />
As for Hillary defending a man accused of rape, that is what attorneys do. Providing legal services for a person accused of a crime does not mean one thinks the accused behavior is acceptable. Anyone who things otherwise has no understanding of our legal system.<br />
<br />
<b>Trump v. Pence</b><br />
<br />
Also disturbing last night was Trump's disagreement with his own VP candidate Mike Pence. Pence had indicated last week that he would consider essentially going to war with Russia over Syria. Trump said he had not discussed Syria with Pence and disagreed. Now I'm sure Presidents and Vice Presidents disagree all the time on matters of policy. But that is simply not something that gets discussed in public. For me it was just another sign of how amateurish and uncoordinated the Trump Campaign is.<br />
<br />
Also, I still have no idea what a Trump Administration would do in the mid-East. Trump has said that he would crush ISIS, but that he would not get involved in a war there. I'm not sure how that works. He has criticized Obama and Clinton for their decisions to get involved militarily in some mid-east disputes, but has also criticized them for pulling out troops. Trump seems to have adopted the Republican Congressional position that anything a Democrat does is bad, even if it agrees with something I liked last week. It's hard to judge then, what they will do if they are in charge.<br />
<br />
<b>Taxes</b><br />
<br />
Trump also attacked Clinton for failing to reform the tax code during her eight years in the Senate. Clinton tried to point out that a junior Democratic Senator who was in the minority for most of her tenure, and who served with an Republican President, cannot set tax policy. I think that is right. Trump's attack shows that he is either incredibly ignorant about how government works, or more likely assumes the voters are. Either way, it is pathetic.<br />
<br />
Trump did actually mention one item of substance, saying he would repeal the carried interest rule. While I applaud that, it seemed odd. The rule allows many investors to pay a top rate of 20% on their income rather than the top rate of nearly 40% on regular income. But Trump also said he wanted to reduce tax rates to 15%, which would make the carried interest rule rate irrelevant, not to mention bankrupt the government. Clinton also said she wanted to get rid of the carried interest rule, so maybe there is some chance of that happening under either administration. I doubt it though.<br />
<br />
<b>Trump Still Falling</b><br />
<br />
Overall, I don't think the debate changed much. Trump's recorded sex comments seem only to continue his downward slide. There is no sign of a turn-around. The electoral map continues to look bad for Trump. Once again, this is what the map would look like if the election were today and all polls were accurate:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlcbU4kIZUJNTBQpY1d0DxS1BSZZrFs4ZdBX8SC4BnFdQYiwPFhIvcXANEmF5sxYruRngwHXcPCg3alu4Z8lK67YB2ykbbV8YkUI0mb3RKmwhCTaEioMTDo3-4u9wUSPajpvGmorzKaYNQ/s1600/Electoral_Map_2016_10_10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="434" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlcbU4kIZUJNTBQpY1d0DxS1BSZZrFs4ZdBX8SC4BnFdQYiwPFhIvcXANEmF5sxYruRngwHXcPCg3alu4Z8lK67YB2ykbbV8YkUI0mb3RKmwhCTaEioMTDo3-4u9wUSPajpvGmorzKaYNQ/s640/Electoral_Map_2016_10_10.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The big change from last week is that Ohio has moved from Red to Blue. Polling is not as up to date in some other States. I suspect that Arizona, Iowa, and Georgia are places where Trump may have a fight on his hands as well. Of course, many of those in Blue are also close and could swing back if there is some revelation that hurts Clinton. Looking at this current map, Trump must win back Florida and North Carolina to have any chance. Even if he can do that, and flip back Ohio, he would still be about 10 votes short of victory. He needs to win either another big state like Pennsylvania or Virginia, both of which seem highly unlikely at this point, or a couple of smaller States, say Nevada and Colorado, both of which seem pretty solidly blue at this point. Absent another major October surprise that benefits Trump, I just don't see any path to a Republican win.<br />
<br />
<b>Republicans Won't Dump Trump</b><br />
<br />
Republican leaders, when confronted with Trump's personal life thus far have mostly responded by shutting their eyes, putting their hands over their ears and shouting LA-LA-LA-LA-LA until the person stops talking. Now finally, they are being forced to address the issue because of the recording. Many Republican members of the House and Senate are doing everything they can to disassociate themselves with Trump and condemning him. Many have even called for him to step down as the candidate.<br />
<br />
Of course, even if Trump wanted to step down, it is too late. Most State deadlines for any ballot changes are over. Some States have already begun early voting. There is no way to make a change at this late date. I suppose it might be possible if you have an insane State Supreme Court that is willing to ignore the written law and change the ballot anyway. The NJ Supreme Court <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics-july-dec02-new-jersey_10-02/">did this in 2002</a> after the Democratic nominee for the Senate imploded and gave up. I really don't see that happening here though. Republicans will go to the polls with the Donald heading their ticket.<br />
<br />
If I were a Republican strategist, I would start pushing the notion that we need to elect a Republican Congress and Senate to counteract the liberal agenda that the Hillary Clinton administration will inevitably push when in office. I think that is a strong argument given that so many people disagree with, or downright hate Clinton. For those people, the notion that the Democrats take back the White House, Congress, and appoint at least one new Justice off the bat, is a frightening prospect. As a Clinton win looks stronger, Republicans will need to play their last card - that they will divide the government and prevent an unimpeded liberal Democratic wave of changes.<br />
<br />
If I were a Democratic strategist, I would of course keep doing what is already happening - continue to show Trump for the narcissistic, boorish, greedy, sex addicted jerk that he is and hold him up to all and say this is the Republican party. This is the guy your Republican Congressman or Senator is backing. Do you really want to stand with that?<br />
<br />
In short, a Clinton win is looking inevitable. The only question is whether the Republican Congress will go down with Trump or appeal to the voters as a check on the unpopular President Clinton.<br />
<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-53493298960437791692016-10-05T13:34:00.001-04:002016-10-05T13:40:59.751-04:00Vice Presidential DebateVice Presidential debates rarely influence a campaign very much. Even when one candidate dominates the debate, it does not affect the outcome (think Lloyd Bentsen destroying Dan Quayle in 1988). It mostly gives viewers a chance to meet to people they don't know very well, especially in a year like this one when neither VP candidate participated in the primaries.<br />
<br />
For me, I mostly got annoyed by Tim Kaine's repeated interruptions and going off topic. I have been a fan of Pence in the past, and last year had wished he had run for President. So I may be biased when I say he did well. He kept his composure in the face of repeated attacks and interruption.<br />
<br />
I really wish both could have been knocked off of their talking points more. Since neither paid much attention to the questions being asked, they talked about whatever topics they liked. The one moment they did get knocked off was the question about their faith.<br />
<br />
The Democrats evidently thought Trump's taxes were a game changing issue. Kaine seemed to go back to that continually. Personally, I consider it rather pathetic to question one's patriotism if one takes legitimate tax deductions. There are a great many reasons I don't like Trump. The fact that he made legal use of tax deductions available to him, under a tax code written by others, only makes good sense to me. That said, the issue seems to be moving the poll numbers, so expect the Democrats to keep hammering away on that issue.<br />
<br />
Pence focused on this administration's foreign policy failures, including the Russian invasion of Crimea and the nuclear treaty with Iran. The problem with both of those examples, was that they happened after Clinton left the State Department. Kaine exacerbated the problem by giving Clinton credit for the Iran deal.<br />
<br />
I think Pence scored some good points over the continued violence in the mid-east. Did "feckless" show up on his word-a-day calendar recently? He seemed to use that a lot. He argued that the Administration's decision to leave Iraq created a vacuum for ISIS and that we should have stayed the course. <br />
<br />
I guess that is a valid policy criticism, but for me not a winning one. Yes, the US could have kept hundreds of thousands of US soldiers on the ground in Iraq, and could have moved them into eastern Syria as well. That, however, would only make the US a greater target for extremist attacks. It would have led to thousands more American lives lost and perhaps another $1 trillion or so in military costs to do almost nothing. Perhaps ISIS would not hold real estate, but those same people would almost certainly be engaged in terrorism, with many more US targets rather than going after locals. If voting Republican means putting more US military in the mid-East, you can count me out. I get that others feel differently. Perhaps those arguments will work on them.<br />
<br />
Kaine will probably be seen as the winner since he kept Pence on the defensive. Pence seemed to have some trouble defending everything Trump has said during the campaign and earlier, but who wouldn't? That means Kaine succeeded in reminding voters that Trump is dangerous and unstable. As I said at the outset though, VP debates have little impact on voters, even when there is a knockout. In this case, there was no decisive blow, even if Kaine wins on points. Pence may get credit for style, since he kept his composure despite Kaine's incessant interrupting. But style points count for little in the long run.<br />
<br />
The polls do seem to be swinging back in favor of Clinton-Kaine. Before the first debate last week, the electoral map was almost dead even. If the election were held today and all polling is accurate, the map would swing back clearly in favor of the Democrats.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqmWj0HJiJntKZYf6pvcUj2OHH_SKOH9-aCSWbwpe9YrcGQ2DsigSEbdAh4fOkw1Pfs-zDA4jjw1LBr5XQDNPJzjAOSVb4Qq3LBk_x7qRv7VGPPTAubItJkSo_iqD7DyDTGi1XvTcETi-D/s1600/electoral_map_2016_10_05.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqmWj0HJiJntKZYf6pvcUj2OHH_SKOH9-aCSWbwpe9YrcGQ2DsigSEbdAh4fOkw1Pfs-zDA4jjw1LBr5XQDNPJzjAOSVb4Qq3LBk_x7qRv7VGPPTAubItJkSo_iqD7DyDTGi1XvTcETi-D/s640/electoral_map_2016_10_05.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada have swung back from Red to Blue. Ohio seems to be pulling more red these days. Clinton, however, can lose Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Nevada and still win the electoral college. In addition to those four, Trump needs to pull another State like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Colorado. So far, those remain polling consistently blue.<br />
<br />
I don't think the VP Debates will have any impact on the poll numbers, which continue to favor Clinton-Kaine. Trump-Pence will need to do something to change the conversation or disrupt the contest in some other way via an "October Surprise" if they want to win this thing. That can happen. It would not take more than a few percentage points to swing quite a number of States. Trump is a master of PR.<br />
<br />
One other interesting note: The first Presidential debate saw a record 84 million viewers. However, 88 million have viewed the debates on Youtube. Personally, I did both. Yes, I actually sat through it a second time.<br />
<br />
The next debate is scheduled for this Sunday, Oct. 9 in St. Louis.<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-9635803417579687372016-09-27T11:17:00.001-04:002016-09-27T11:17:47.385-04:00First Clinton Trump DebateMany of my blogs talk about polls and other relatively neutral data. Today I will be discussing my personal impressions and opinions about the debate. <br />
<br />
Like most Americans, I dislike both candidates. Unlike most, I plan to vote for a third party, Gary Johnson. But today I'll confine my comments to the choice between the two candidate in the debate.<br />
<br />
Hillary Clinton reminded me why I dislike her in her opening statement. He listed a host of liberal democratic domestic agenda policies which will harm the economy, increase bureaucracy, and continue to push business out of this country. She offered no new ideas to solve national problems. Rather, we go the same proposals we heard from Democrats 40 years ago.<br />
<br />
Fortunately for Clinton, Trump spoke next. Trump launched into the issue that helped drive him to win the nomination: protectionism. Trump wants to tax imports and put up other barriers to other countries trading with the US, i.e. end free trade. Free trade, of course, typically has been a Republican issue, one with which many conservative and moderate Democrats agree. I fail to understand the appeal of protectionism. It increases inflation and the cost of living for most Americans, for the benefit of a few who can take advantage of the reduced foreign competition. I think protectionism will greatly damage this country. Clinton has supported free trade in the past, but now seems to be pandering to voters by obfuscating that support.<br />
<br />
Where does Trump get the number of "30 years" for Clinton to make changes to national policy? Thirty years ago, Clinton was a private attorney in Arkansas. Even if you consider her role as First Lady as involvement in policy making, that was 23 years ago. Add to his time impairments, Trump's accusation that Clinton has been fighting ISIS her entire adult life without success. That seems to conflict with his accusation that Obama and Clinton created ISIS, unless he thinks Clinton is about 25 years old.<br />
<br />
Throughout most of the debate, I think Clinton kept Trump on the ropes, going after him for business practices and other nonsense that he has spouted during the earlier campaign. Trump seemed surprisingly unable to counter punch. He did not bring up Bengazi. He made a few references to her email server. For the most part, I think Trump remained on the defensive for most of the debate.<br />
<br />
The one issue that might resonate with a few voters is the Trump's apparent admission that he paid no income taxes. That may turn off some of the few remaining undecideds. Trump did not seem to want to defend it other than saying that not paying taxes was "smart." It seems that the better defense is that, as a businessman, he uses the loopholes in the convoluted tax system to avoid paying any, and that he is going to change that. But he did not really say that in the debate.<br />
<br />
I would say that Clinton won the debate. Of course, that may not change many minds. If one opposes traditional Democratic solutions to policy problems, one is likely not persuaded by debate tactics. Trump said nothing particularly embarrassing, which I think remained his primary goal for the evening.<br />
<br />
Ncxt week the Vice Presidential Candidates debate.<br />
<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-18546230492022345022016-09-24T06:56:00.003-04:002016-09-24T06:56:59.993-04:00Trump Evens Up the Race Before First DebateAt the end of the Conventions, Hillary Clinton soared ahead of Donald Trump. If the election had been held just after the two conventions, and the candidates had won everything based on polling, Clinton would have won in a landslide with 357 electoral votes, more than President Obama won in 2012.<br />
<br />
Since that time though, Clinton's support has steadily eroded while Trump has continued to gain support. Below is what the electoral map would look like today if candidates won in every State where the polls indicate a victory:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv2rVMyDUHe8KP2oLtv0RXGsgJHIYMC7hHkRdoq75t7JTUmNgURn7YBIfXr8p3LPon0CFPNaF9n78GkcGrSc_7xQzy02bp34oNdzdbQtMbIi-mQN7ZJYjCxmwFqImP6qozKqhf6RoaUIyE/s1600/electoral+map+9-24-16.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="443" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv2rVMyDUHe8KP2oLtv0RXGsgJHIYMC7hHkRdoq75t7JTUmNgURn7YBIfXr8p3LPon0CFPNaF9n78GkcGrSc_7xQzy02bp34oNdzdbQtMbIi-mQN7ZJYjCxmwFqImP6qozKqhf6RoaUIyE/s640/electoral+map+9-24-16.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
Clinton still has the lead, but only by the narrowest of margins. If Trump could turn one more State: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, even tiny New Hampshire, he would win in this scenario. <br />
<br />
Of course, Trump's lead in several of these states is extremely tenuous. Polling shows Trump 0.1% ahead of Clinton in critical Florida, well within the margin of error. North Carolina, Ohio, and Nevada also remain seriously in contention.<br />
<br />
Since the end of the conventions, the momentum has moved steadily in Trump's favor. Trump seems to be convincing voters, or voters are convincing themselves, that he is not so bad or dangerous. That is pretty much all Trump needs to do to pull a majority of voters, who already hate Clinton.<br />
<br />
All of this will likely change on Monday night after the first televised debate. Clinton seems to have the more difficult task since voters have known her record for longer and generally don't like what they see. The left wing of the Democratic Party still wishes they could have Bernie Sanders. Moderates find her too partisan. Even if she says all the right things, the majority of the country does not trust what she says.<br />
<br />
By contrast, Trump finds himself in the enviable position that Ronald Reagan found himself in 1980. That year, voters were sick and tired of Jimmy Carter, but were afraid that Reagan was a loose canon, out of touch with reality and ready to start a war. Reagan did not have to prove he was superior to Carter in his grasp of the issues. He only had to show he was barely competent and would not push the button on day one. He passed that bar and won overwhelmingly. If Trump can do the same thing, he could very well see a path to victory.<br />
<br />
Whether Trump can meet that low bar is very much open to question. He has no debate experience, and by all accounts is not doing much of any traditional preparation. He did well in primary debates with large numbers of participants because he only had time for a few one liners and a couple of attention grabbing statements. At this point, outrageous statements are likely to hurt rather than help. If we only hear name calling and lines like "it will be great, trust me" he is likely to fail. <br />
<br />
Clinton will almost certain go on the attack, pressing Trump to release his taxes, talk about the Trump Foundation, past business practices, etc. Trump will likely also attack, going after the Clinton Foundation, express concerns about her health, etc. We may see some policy arguments over tax policies, ISIS, and security. Almost certainly the recent police shootings and demonstrations will be an issue, though I don't think either candidate has a good answer to that.<br />
<br />
What makes the debates most interesting is what is not predictable. Either candidate could make a gaff, which seriously harms his or her standing with the voters. Trump is more likely to have trouble here, but is also more likely to get off surprising one liners that stick with voters.<br />
<br />
Sadly, none of the third parties have risen to the occasion in a year when both major party candidates have such strong negatives. Libertarian Gary Johnson has only polled in the 5% - 10% range, well short of the 15% needed for debate participation. Johnson had been gaining until his well publicized gaff about not knowing what Aleppo was. The gaff itself probably would not be a big deal if it did not come just when America was getting to know him. If voters' first impressions are that this guy is clueless, they are likely not to give him a second look.<br />
<br />
Jill Stein of the Green Party is doing even worse, polling in the 2% - 4% range. While Johnson seems to pull support from both Democrats and Republicans, with a domestic policy favored by Republicans and foreign policy favored by Democrats, Stein's support comes almost exclusively from what would otherwise be Democratic votes. Her ultra left views may attract some Sanders supporters and other liberal Democrats. Without getting any initial groundswell, most potential Green voters will see that vote as a waste that only helps Trump.<br />
<br />
It would have been nice to have a third party candidate in the debates. In a two person race, both candidates simply need to criticize the other rather than explain why they would be good for the country themselves. In a three person race, each candidate would have to speak more positively. It seems, however, that we will be stuck with the two person dynamic in the debates.<br />
<br />
So, we await the Monday night debates to see how it might change the course of the campaign. While most voters have made their decisions already, in this close elections the small number of undecideds becomes critical to victory. Monday night is the key to winning that group.<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-42865574070905730942016-08-05T10:08:00.001-04:002016-08-05T10:08:49.375-04:00Clinton Surges Trump CrashesFollowing the two Conventions, Hillary Clinton has surged into a solid lead against Donald Trump. Nationally, Clinton is up nearly 7% over Trump. Several prominent Republicans have endorsed Clinton, fearing the disaster that is the Trump Campaign.<br />
<br />
Trump's big stumbling block for the last week has been his attacks on gold star parents.the Khans who criticized Trump at the Democratic Convention. Trump has come along way by attacking anyone who dares to criticize him and by never apologizing. So perhaps he is surprised that this strategy is beginning to cause problems. That said, attacking the parents of a fallen war hero seems to be a bridge too far for even some of his strongest supporters. <br />
<br />
Trump has also taken heat for reports that he asked military advisers why the US should not use nuclear weapons. Now normally a provocative question like that could be taken as a way of just going over the reasons why the use of nukes are a bad idea. But the comments fit so well into the narrative of Trump as a foreign policy neophyte and a dangerously unstable person, that he is not going to get any slack on this.<br />
<br />
In addition Trump has failed to unify the Republican establishment. Several have endorsed Clinton, including Meg Whitman of California, Former Bush Treasury Sec. Hank Paulson, and Con. Richard Hanna (R-NY). Major Republican fundraisers like the Koch brothers are refusing to spend on the Trump campaign. Even Sheldon Adelson, who backed Trump during the primary season, seems to be hesitating on spending more money now.<br />
<br />
Of course, all the political pundits (and me) thought Trump would never win the nomination with his lack of organization, endorsements, and funding. He proved us all wrong on that one. Now we are saying the same thing about the general election. Trump certainly has his hard core supporters who as the candidate himself said, would continue to support him even if he gunned down someone in the street.<br />
<br />
Polls however are showing that what worked for Trump in the primaries may not work for him in the General Election. Clinton is surging ahead. If the election were held today, based on state by state polling, this is what the outcome would look like.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc68mVZ_qhxN19cfGCXHLFiFggEZMCDG_aOSBVASjFJ4IFrUtILmQu8uHRCsVr1dV9Xw88jFnD-GC-vqOGLT__L-BbGxZ90YaQIeaWPeECDtAqw6xjM6cEAMQYc1tebf_geobzgpSDjJXy/s1600/Electoral_2016-08-05.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="341" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc68mVZ_qhxN19cfGCXHLFiFggEZMCDG_aOSBVASjFJ4IFrUtILmQu8uHRCsVr1dV9Xw88jFnD-GC-vqOGLT__L-BbGxZ90YaQIeaWPeECDtAqw6xjM6cEAMQYc1tebf_geobzgpSDjJXy/s400/Electoral_2016-08-05.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Of course, there is still plenty of time for things to change. Clinton's negatives remain high. If Trump can just convince people that he is relatively sane, things could change quickly. Even so, even if we only give Clinton every State where she is up by 5% or more, and say Trump can win back those other swing states, Clinton would still win the electoral college by a slight margin:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4N5DZKpT05_qCyD25JfIaa0ovm66myCCLg5NwawiXqSSClpdkJDPLPUZpAKr49y8XUDsHUtwpJsaihrcTRL2u11GjpNa9OVwOdVVpY098ALLLQfFZWzrsqtzUTQbqBg7lBP0OBSbdLkjf/s1600/Electoral%252B5_2016-08-05.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4N5DZKpT05_qCyD25JfIaa0ovm66myCCLg5NwawiXqSSClpdkJDPLPUZpAKr49y8XUDsHUtwpJsaihrcTRL2u11GjpNa9OVwOdVVpY098ALLLQfFZWzrsqtzUTQbqBg7lBP0OBSbdLkjf/s400/Electoral%252B5_2016-08-05.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Earlier in the race, it looked as if Trump might have a chance at turning Pennsylvania. The state is full of socially conservative working class whites who support protectionism and seemed ripe for Trump's message. But Clinton is now nearly 10 points ahead of Trump in that State.<br />
<br />
Everything appears to be going Clinton's way at this point. But as we saw during the Primaries, Trump has a way of turning things around when we least expect it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-12158410826480240272016-07-31T11:11:00.000-04:002016-07-31T11:11:33.063-04:00Thoughts on the Democratic Convention<br />
My attempts to view the Democratic Convention last week were limited by a family vacation. I ended up having to watch most of the speeches after the fact on Youtube. For some reason, my wife and teen-aged sons did not want to spend hours watching live speeches in the hotel. For that reason, I'm not going to go in day by day order like I did with the Republicans, but rather just discuss the individual speakers.<br />
<br />
<b>Scandal</b><br />
<br />
Of course, the Democrats had a scandal before the Convention even opened. DNC emails showed that the Party Chair and other staff members were biased in favor of Clinton. They worked to hurt Sanders' efforts during the campaign. To me this was a non-issue. Telling me the party bosses supported the establishment candidate during the primary campaign is a bit like saying that the grass is green. Of course they backed Clinton. They are not judges that have to remain ethically impartial. They try to maintain a minimal facade of neutrality. But anyone who did not know a year ago that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was backing Clinton just was not paying attention. Of course the issue was timed to be a distraction and to be one more kick in the nuts to the already angry Sanders supporters attending the Convention.<br />
<br />
<b>Cory Booker</b><br />
<br />
Overall, I found the speeches, as long as they remained vague, to be much more positive and uplifting than the Republican speeches. I was intrigued by Sen. Cory Booker's speech, which was not the normal political babble. He went into a discussion about how it was important that we not just tolerate one another but actually love one another. My first reaction was a cynical notion that this is just a liberal politician's way of justifying massive welfare programs. But the more I thought about it, he was really stating my own religious principles as a Christian (and one that fits the moral principles of many other religions as well) without actually putting it in an overtly religious context. It was a far more compelling speech on morality that I ever hear from the religious right. The fact that it was generally "off-theme" tells me it was something that really came from his heart.<br />
<br />
<b>Michelle Obama</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Michelle always gives a great speech. As First Lady she knows not to veer into even remotely controversial political issues, but speaks as a wife and mother about the importance of values. She does so without sounding too domestic or lightweight. It is a difficult balancing act that she does with finesse. Her comment about living in a house built by slaves <a href="http://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2016/07/27/bill-oreilly-white-house-slaves-cnnmoney.cnn/video/playlists/money-and-politics/">set off some right wing pundits</a> a little. But that only made their protests in apparent defense of slavery look pathetic. Overall, it was a good solid uplifting speech that reminded everyone why a majority of Americans sent the Obamas to the White House, even if we do not agree on every policy issue they hold.<br />
<br />
<b>Bernie Sanders</b><br />
<br />
Bernie Sanders was the potential wild card speech. He continues to push Hillary to the left on a great many issues. This may hurt her with moderates. However, she is good at threading that needle with purposely vague and evasive statements that can please anyone until something actually needs to be enacted. Sanders gave a speech outlining his hard left positions but at the same time saying he thought Clinton had come around on most of them and that he was pleased to support her.<br />
<br />
One rather minor issue that the press seemed to ignore: typically the losing candidate ends the roll call vote and calls for the selection of the winning candidate by acclamation. Sanders performed this roll but did not call for acclamation. His exact words were:<br />
<br />
“<i>I move that the convention suspend the procedural rules. I move that all votes, all votes cast by delegates be reflected in the official record, and I move that Hillary Clinton be selected as the nominee of the Democratic Party for president of the United States,</i>”<br />
<br />
There was no call for unanimous selection or acclamation, just that she be selected. In other words, he gave grudging acceptance that she had more votes than him and that he had to accept that fact. It was a subtle difference, nothing compared to Cruz's "FU Donald" speech or the fact that other primary opponents skipped the Republican Convention altogether. But Sanders' well considered lines clearly did not want to call on his delegates to vote for Clinton at the Convention.<br />
<br />
<b>Elizabeth Warren</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Warren was clearly the designated attack dog for the Convention. She went after Trump on a wide range of issues, from his business practices and bankruptcies, to his lack of any substantive policy positions. It was typical red meat for hard core Convention delegates, but I don't think it did much else. I have liked Warren even before she became a Senator because she understood how Wall Street needs to be contained more. But attacking Trump for wanting to buy cheap real estate after the crash just sounds pathetic. Of course businessmen want to buy low. Criticizing that only makes you sound like you do not understand how business works. Of course Warren does understand that. So she is just demagogueing the issue.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe Biden</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Biden gave a pretty forgettable speech. He tried to address the personal side of Clinton and how she would work to help working people. He attacked Trump, but not nearly as savagely as Warren did. He did what a good Vice President does: say nothing to that takes things off message or distracts from the main speaker. Most of what I remember from the speech is some guy in the audience banging on a cowbell during the speech. It just kept reminding me of the Saturday Night Live <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCd0OjjCz88">cowbell sketch</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Bill Clinton</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Bill is always good for an effective speech. What struck me most though is how he has aged. There seemed to be a tremble in his voice and a shake in his hand that I had not noticed before. It just sucks to get old I guess. <br />
<br />
His speech itself though was classic Clinton. I think he did a wonderful job of trying to humanize Hillary, talking about her life growing up and her passion for helping children. Hillary needs to be humanized more as many voters see her as a political machine fueled by polls and focus groups and unwilling to speak out to her passions. Bill's speech helped with that.<br />
<br />
<b>Tim Kane</b><br />
<br />
Clinton's new Vice Presidential nominee also gave a relatively forgettable speech. As a conservative (for a Democrat) choice his job on the ticket is clearly to appeal to moderates or conservative leaning Democrats and moderates. He opened with a nod to his active duty military son to show that yes, Democrats do like the military. He also got to speak a few lines in Spanish, to show off that skill. He introduced himself to the public with a mix of self-deprecation and humor. I was not impressed with Kane's choice of ties. I only mention that so I could comment on the fashion choices of a male speaker without commenting on anything any of the woman speakers.<br />
<br />
<b>Barack Obama</b><br />
<br />
Obama had a prominent role on Wednesday evening to give his speech. The fact that he and Michelle and Biden all had prominent speeches shows that Clinton will associate herself strongly with the current Administration, not making the same mistake of Al Gore in 2000. While I disagree with many of Obama's policies, I have always admired his ability to speak intelligently and to place things in proper perspective. I think he did that effectively on Wednesday, providing an optimistic view of America, in marked contrast to the Republicans who tried to paint today's America as a post-apocalyptic dystopia needing a strong man to restore order. Obama gave a great speech, while giving a great push for the new candidate. He did not ignore their past rivalries, but held them up as an example of why she should be the next President.<br />
<br />
<b>Chelsea Clinton</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Since Trump had his daughter Ivanka introduce him, Clinton decided it was appropriate to have her daughter Chelsea introduce her. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, although Ivanka really had more of a role it her father's campaign than did Chelsea. Ivanka made news by suggesting her father would pursue policy positions that he had never discussed on the campaign either before or since. <br />
<br />
By contrast, Chelsea mostly spoke about Clinton as a loving mother and grandmother. It was not directly about advocacy of her positions, though she seems to share those, but more humanizing stories about Clinton: her love of her family as well as her passion for helping people. The speech was mostly forgettable, other than to help add to the week's theme of convincing people that Clinton is a real human being and not a political machine.<br />
<br />
<b>Hillary Clinton</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
As expected, Clinton spent much of her speech on non-controversial matters like praising other speakers and thanking folks who had some role in the campaign. It made her sound gracious and considerate, challenging the image of her that conservative pundits have painted. She went after Trump in general terms, criticizing the notion that Trump alone could solve the nation's problems. That vesting such power in one person was not only unrealistic, but also dangerous and unconstitutional. It is one of the main reasons I object so strongly to Trump.<br />
<br />
She talked about her working class upbringing and her family. Other than that, she spoke in aspirations and vague terms: we need safe communities, we need to give working people a raise, we need comprehensive immigration reform, we need to oppose unfair trade deals, we need to defeat terrorism, etc. Statements which, on their face, no one could disagree, but which we might very much disagree on the means by which we achieve those goals.<br />
<br />
That's probably best. When she started referring core Democratic issues like the right to kill unborn babies, compelling private citizens to participate in homosexual weddings, compelling private employers to pay the price of artificially increased wages and benefits, imposing "common sense" gun control, and censoring political speech by overruling <i>Citizens United</i> I was only reminded about why I don't want to vote Democrat. In terms of tone, imagery, and being in touch with reality, I have to give the clear win to the Democrats.<br />
<br />
<b>A few other random thoughts:</b><br />
<br />
<b>Flag Creep</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The right-wing whiners jumped on the fact that there were no American flags visible on the stage on Monday night. The next day, there were about eight flags, four on either side of the stage. The next day, in addition to those flags, we started seeing flag iconography on the video screens. On Wednesday, the video screens with flag iconography sat right behind the speaker so that it would be in the shot during the speech. By the time of Clinton's speech on the final night, there were hundreds of delegates waving American flags, as well as flags attached to the bottom of each State delegation sign. Not sure how the lack of flags got missed on the first night, but there was definite scrambling in later days to make up for that.<br />
<br />
<b>Progress</b><br />
<br />
I remember in 2008, there was almost zero discussion of Obama being the first black President until minutes after the polls closed in November. I have to think the campaign deliberately asked reporters and pundits to keep a lid on that during the election. Everyone knew he would be the first black President if elected. But the campaign did not want to make that part of the conversation. In contrast, we are already seeing numerous discussions about Hillary being the first woman President. Again, everyone already knows that, but I think the discussion during the election hurts her more than it helps.<br />
<br />
After President Obama completed his speech, Hillary Clinton came on stage to embrace him to the applause of the Convention. It was a great image of the current and future administration working together toward the common goal of progress in America. Yet, as a student of history, I could not help but think how much that embrace said about the progress of race relations in America. Less than 50 years ago, the first interracial televised kiss on Star Trek set off a firestorm of complaints. Democratic conventions still had all white State delegations back then. A black man embracing a white woman in that very could very well have ended in a lynching. Probably the only reason it even occurred to me was that I had been reading an account of the murder of Emmett Till recently. I am proud of the fact that such an interracial embrace today does not even raise an eyebrow or evince a comment from right wing pundits. That silence is a statement to me on how far race relations have advanced in this country over only a few decades.<br />
<br />
<b>Upcoming Campaign Themes</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
A convention regularly introduces themes that the campaigns will use between now and November. We will see attacks on Trump's America First position by pointing out that all of his goods are produced overseas. We will probably see commercials interviewing "real Americans" who were scammed out of money by Trump University, or whose businesses have suffered as a result of Trump's bankruptcies or debt refinance demands. Muslim citizens with US military service, or their families seem to be an effective attack as well.<br />
<br />
Hillary has also decided to jump on the Sanders (and Trump) bandwagon of protectionism. I am hopeful that she only speaks in vague generalities: "I will oppose bad trade deals". Of course no one wants a "bad" deal, but what exactly constitutes "bad"? You will hear this and similar lines, particularly in the Mid-west where Clinton must win protectionist votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio.<br />
<br />
The Campaign will also focus on national security, with the theme that Clinton is the adult in the room and Trump is dangerous, unstable egomaniac who will get us into war. They will use his own words to paint him as a bully, demagogue and potential tyrant.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-65901311043109022792016-07-24T11:02:00.001-04:002016-07-24T11:02:25.355-04:00Republican Convention - Final ThoughtsNow that the Republican convention has wrapped up, Trump-Pence and launch its General Election swing.<br />
<br />
Overall, I found the convention rather confused and disjointed. As noted in my last post, many of the speakers seemed entirely out of touch with reality.<br />
<br />
<b>Day One</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The theme for day one was "Make America Safe Again." The Obama Administration is still having trouble wrapping up the Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that does not seem to be what the Republicans meant. Rather, most of the speakers who spoke on theme that night at lest implied that the US should get more involved in mid-East wars. Somehow that would put an end to the few random attacks by US citizens that foreign terrorist groups have been able to inspire in the US.<br />
<br />
Crime was also a big issue. Crime rates overall continue to fall during this administration. Murder rates are at a decades long low. Republicans seem to want to cherry pick a few statistics, such as murder rates higher in Chicago this year, and add in a few anecdotal incidents to imply that the US is in great peril from crime. The reality is that crime is lower. Despite the Donald's promise that on January 20th "peace will be restored" they did not offer much detail on what that meant or how it would happen. If it happens on January 20th the day he takes office, I assume that he must be crediting President Obama's work in restoring safety to the country. In truth, if Trump was elected, America might feel safer because the Republicans would change their tone, regardless of any underlying statistics, and would stop trying to raise a panic.<br />
<br />
<b>Day Two</b><br />
<br />
The theme of Day 2 was "Make America Work Again." Presumably this means they are promising to reduce unemployment and put people back to work. In 2009, the year Obama took office, unemployment hit 10%. Today it is 4.9%. The average unemployment rate over the last 50 years is around 6.2%, so we are actually doing pretty well right now. But you would not guess that from the Republican speeches. Perhaps they have a plan to reduce unemployment further by cutting taxes and regulations or through Trump's negotiation of phenomenal new trade deals, but I don't see it. Tax cuts can create temporary job stimulation, but little else. Trade deals that enforce a protectionist policy to bring jobs home will only create massive inflation as costs to produce the goods we consume will become much more expensive. Maybe the Republicans can make this work. But I remember the two disasters of the last two Republican Presidencies and the great cleanup work done by the last two Democratic Presidencies. I personally don't trust the Republicans with the economy.<br />
<br />
<b>Day Three</b><br />
<br />
The theme of Day three was "Make America First Again". I'm not sure exactly what this was supposed to mean. Maybe it means that the government will put US interests ahead of those of other countries, something Trump has accused Obama of doing. Maybe it means that they would make America number 1 again. The US is number one by many measures, although we now have the second largest economy, after China. Maybe Trump plans to change that.<br />
<br />
It's hard to say though, because the night's speakers really made no attempt to discuss the theme. Many of the speakers were former Trump opponents: Rubio, Walker, and Cruz. None seemed particularly convincing in their support of Trump. Cruz, as widely noted refused to endorse Trump and was booed as a result. The Hosting State Governor and Trump opponent Kasich did not speak and is among the many prominent Republicans not attending the Convention.<br />
<br />
VP nominee Mike Pence also spoke on Wednesday, giving his introductory speech. He gave a good forgettable speech, which is what you usually want from a VP. It does not distract from the Presidential candidate's message and moved things along. Pence's speech says that we can do better that the current administration. He said a Clinton Administration would be a third Obama Administration. Maybe he meant that she would also be able to cut the unemployment rate in half or that she would also reduce the deficit by more than two-thirds, or that she would continue to reduce the crime rate, but he probably did not mean those things. My cynicism aside, I think it was a good speech: red meat for the convention, a broad discussion of general Republican principles on issues such as crime, jobs, education, military, etc. I suppose that will make America First again if they could really pull it off.<br />
<br />
<b>Day Four</b><br />
<br />
The final night's theme was, apparently, not ironically, "Make American One Again". Supposedly making the point that President Trump will unify the country. In that Candidate Trump cannot even unify the Republican Party, I'll have to remain skeptical on that one.<br />
<br />
Ivanka Trump gave the introductory address. I was honestly surprised by the content of her speech. It was not simply a sop to a wonderful father. She touched on some very real policy issues, and some rather controversial ones in the Republican Party. She began by saying honestly that she was not a solid Republican supporter and tended to vote for candidates of both parties based on issues. She talked about the problem of continuing pay disparities for women, and pointed out that the largest disparities were primarily for women with children. She then talked about how her father's administration would do more to end that disparity by providing better child care services for working mothers. It was something that I would have expected to hear from the Democrats. Yet she received applause for it. It could be that she was laying the groundwork for a pivot in the general election to her father's more liberal positions. It was an interesting speech.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump's main speech, however, was not as ambitious. Although he gave the longest acceptance speech in modern history, he said almost nothing of substance. He gave a great many cherry picked statistics to show what a disaster the country was right now. Mostly the speech was critical of the Obama Administration and Clinton's role in that administration. Normally, one would expect the VP to handle that attack dog role, so the Presidential candidate can be more positive. But Trump is strong on attack and weak on a positive vision. Sure, he can tell us in vague terms that things will be just great in his administration, but not why they will be great or what policies will make them great. We just have to trust him on those details.<br />
<br />
<b>Convention Results</b><br />
<br />
Despite the absence of a great many prominent Republicans from the Convention, and a few minor plagiarism squabbles, the Convention seemed to cause little controversy and gave America a week to focus on the Republicans. Typically, a Party will see a polling bump after its convention. While polls have not been taken everywhere since the Convention finished, we have seen that Florida has gone from a fraction of a percentage in the lead for Hillary to a fraction of a percentage point in favor of Trump. That is actually within the polling margin of error, but for now puts Florida in the Trump column. Even so, based on current polls, if the election were held today, Clinton would win easily Here is what the electoral map would look like:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZN6RtEoLCXcDETSD0TG9Qi3XmAMgxpaQkgqdHwC7TClCYod_JjGGzqay5HQbU1cyFaUdXmbYzZK3gJRlN0XPMudNmwiPJ1XPM79KuBtTCBmlJbemt-d5N1epU-0A3hYKbrt3Q-5E5DfoQ/s1600/270towin-16-07-25.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="408" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZN6RtEoLCXcDETSD0TG9Qi3XmAMgxpaQkgqdHwC7TClCYod_JjGGzqay5HQbU1cyFaUdXmbYzZK3gJRlN0XPMudNmwiPJ1XPM79KuBtTCBmlJbemt-d5N1epU-0A3hYKbrt3Q-5E5DfoQ/s640/270towin-16-07-25.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
As you can see, even giving Florida to Trump gives Clinton a big win. Even though post convention is often a high water make for a candidate, that may not be the case this year. Trump is an effective campaigner, and there are also big questions on demographic turnout that could swing a number of States. Since many people tend to be voting against a candidate this year rather then for one, Candidate coverage may actually hurt a campaign.<br />
<br />
If Trump could also win North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, all of which are very close right now, he would have an electoral majority. It will be interesting to see some polls after the Democrats complete their convention next week.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-1894742873611895892016-07-20T08:58:00.001-04:002016-07-20T08:58:17.736-04:00Republican ConventionMost of my posts so far have been following the horse race of the primary elections, or giving analysis and predictions of what might happen down the road. I have not expressed very many of my personal opinions thus far. Today, I plan to discuss my impressions of the Republican convention after the first two days.<br />
<br />
<b>Where to Watch</b><br />
<br />
I have been watching much of the convention speakers, on C-span, where they don't continually break away from the speakers to give commentary, like most other news channels. I want to listen to the words of those speaking, not the pundits. The main speakers have been relatively competent. But some of the lesser speakers, ignored by other coverage, have been deeply disturbing. <br />
<br />
<b>Quality of Speakers</b><br />
<br />
Many of the speakers have been wrestlers, athletes, and soap opera stars. I suppose it is part of the strategy to have many speakers from non-traditional backgrounds for a political convention. But listening to their overly simplistic and factually challenged speeches, I've only become more disturbed about the direction of the Republican party.<br />
<br />
The fact that there are so many non-traditional speakers may also have to do with the fact that many politicians are already distancing themselves from the Presidential elections this year. I think it speaks volumes about how divided things are that four of the five living former Republican Presidential candidates are no-shows. Absent are Romney, McCain, Bush Jr. & Bush Sr. Only Bob Dole showed up for the Convention, and he is not speaking. Numerous Governors, Senators, and Congressmen have also found scheduling conflicts this week.<br />
<br />
<b>Keep America Safe</b><br />
<br />
To the Convention itself: The theme of Day 1 was "keep America safe". Lots of harping on police shootings, ISIS inspired attacks and chaos abroad. The reality, of course is that killings by police, killings of police and crime overall are all at historic lows right now. Yes, one unjustified killing it too many, but the notion that these jokers have a plan to improve things is crazy. At least I have not heard anything said on the first day that convinces me otherwise.<br />
<br />
It is standard practice for the opposition to criticize the administration and paint everything is terrible while out of office, just like when you are in power everything is wonderful. I still remember when gas was over $5/gallon during the last Bush administration and Republican columnists coming up with every excuse in the world why it was not the Administration's fault. One columnist suggested it was because the average weight of an American had increased by 35 pounds over the previous generation, thus reducing gas mileage! As soon as Obama took office, they were screaming that gas was $4/gallon under Obama as if it was all his fault. Now that it is around $2 you don't exactly hear them singing Obama's praises. Rather, they are still screaming about the refusal to build the Keystone Pipeline. Not sure why since in retrospect it seems like a good decision not to build it. Most tar sands drilling has stopped due to the low gas prices. The pipeline would have been an expensive boondoggle. Still, Obama hates business and progress. Let's try to stay on message.<br />
<br />
<b>Plagiarism Scandal</b><br />
<br />
The big takeaway from Day 1 was the "scandal" over the fact that Melania Trump's borrowing a few phrases from Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech. I can't say I care much about that. Virtually all the major speeches are written by others. Since political speeches spout the same sort of empty rhetoric year after year, I'm not surprised many sound the same. So some lazy speechwriter grabbed a few lines from an earlier speech. It happens all the time.<br />
<br />
<b>Attacking Clinton</b><br />
<br />
I was much more bothered by some of the vitriol leveled at Hillary Clinton. I am not a fan of Clinton myself. I disagree with most of the political positions she has taken. Part of any convention is going to be attacking the other party opponent. But hearing thousands of Republicans chanting, for the imprisonment their political opponent is something I would expect in some third world country or a communist dictatorship. <br />
<br />
The criminal system as a political tool is a dangerous one, fraught with peril for a democracy. It's one reason the British Parliament traditionally granted immunity to its members, or why the US Constitution prevents the arrest of members of Congress when travelling two or from congressional sessions. All modern Presidents have probably at least arguably broken some criminal law. The danger of criminally charging one's criminal opponents though, threatens the peaceful transition of power between parties that we in this country take for granted. Obama could have prosecuted Bush and Cheney for their authorization of torture but wisely did not. Cheney could have been prosecuted for shooting a guy in the face (negligent assault). I think it was appropriate not to pursue charges for the reasons outlined above. This is one of those fundamental traditions of a democracy that makes it work. Even just talking about it can have real consequences for the country.<br />
<br />
<b>Benghazi</b><br />
<br />
Two of the major partisan attacks on Clinton are "Benghazi" and "email server". I have always been perplexed about why people care much about either. Benghazi, of course was tragic loss of a US Ambassador and other embassy officials. I can understand why Republicans might want to keep the issue alive for political gain. But what exactly are they accusing Obama, or Clinton of doing? Do they think that they wanted their people to die, or that they did not care at all? That seems absurd. If the argument is that there were not sufficient protections in place or that the government was ineptly slow in attempting a rescue, that seems like a poor political argument. Embassies in unstable or hostile countries are inherently risky. People take those jobs knowing the risk, much like soldiers do. We spend billions on embassy security, but it will never be enough to ensure 100% security.<br />
<br />
Republicans in Congress had been trying to cut embassy security prior to this incident and the State Department went along by not proposing some of the more expensive options. If anything, this is a bipartisan scandal. However, there is also no reason to think that more measures would have been enough to save them. I've seen or heard nothing in all of the investigations that indicates the President or the Secretary of State personally did anything to prevent the tragedy. It's much like blaming Bush the younger for 9/11. Yes, it happened on his watch, but Presidents don't micromanage security issues, nor should they. Embassy attacks in a hostile world are inevitable and unpreventable.<br />
<br />
<b>Email Server</b><br />
<br />
The private email server is the other big scandal. Of the many things Clinton has done or been accused of, this probably ranks near the bottom of my list. She used a personal email for work, something almost everyone does. Yes, it's different because she works with secret materials. Personally, I don't think negligent handling of secret materials should be a crime (as opposed to deliberately providing them to our enemies). It is used to attack good, well meaning people. I have read of numerous incidences of its use to fire and imprison low level government officials that higher ups want to get rid of for completely different reasons. Decisions to prosecute are biased and fraught with abuses of power. If Republicans really cared about the security implications, why don't they seek the arrest of all State Department officials who emailed secret information to Clinton's private address? This is another example of using criminal laws for political gain, nothing more.<br />
<br />
<b>Security Goals</b><br />
<br />
Putting aside the attacks on Clinton, the Convention is also an opportunity for the candidate to showcase his own agenda. While I'm not expecting people to get up and read policy papers, the level of generality in these speeches is worse than most. Making America great, without more, is not an expression of policy. The theme of Day 1 was making America safe. There were criticisms of Obama and Clinton for allowing ISIS to grow. Yes, Obama pulled out of Iraq. Many on the right think this was a mistake that led to ISIS. I agree that if we maintain a force of tens of thousands of US military in the region, we might have been able to suppress the growth of ISIS. However, at the cost of probably trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, the result would be continued suppressed rage at America, and the ability of all mid-east leaders to blame America for the continued misery in the region. Attacks in the US inspired by Internet messages to US citizens encouraging them to commit these attacks would probably happen at a more alarming rate.<br />
<br />
If the Republican argument is that we need to spend over $1 trillion per year on the military and government security apparatus and that we need to involve ourselves aggressively in every part of the world where we dislike a foreign government's policies, then they will never get my vote. But I've not heard more than hints that the Republicans think we should do that. They have criticized Obama for pulling out but have not said that they would go back in and put boots on the ground. If that is their plan, they should say so.<br />
<br />
I genuinely have no idea how Trump might plan to make America safe. How will he use the military? Will he increase internal state security? What are his plans. Other than someone vague and outlandish claims to reduce immigration or even visits from certain countries, or blocking members of certain religious faiths from entering the country, I'm not sure what he has planned. The Convention speeches did not help with any of that.<br />
<br />
<b>Good Speeches</b><br />
<br />
Of the many speeches I heard, there were two that I generally liked. Speaker Ryan gave a good speech. It was, of course general and has been criticizing for not mentioning Trump very much. He tried to outline his vision of being a Republican and contrasting it with the liberal Democrat agenda. I didn't agree with everything he said, but found it to be an intelligent, well written, and compelling convention speech.<br />
<br />
Surprisingly, the other speech I liked so far came from Donald Trump, Jr. His speech touched on a host of Republican polices, again not getting into detail but laying out the general ideas Republicans have and why they are better than those of the Democrats. I think he also did a good job of praising his father without making it sound as forced or phony as many of the other speeches did . If his father had given speeches like that throughout the campaign, I might even be talking about voting Republican this year. Again, I did not agree with everything he said but thought it was a good speech. There are again "plagiarism" accusations as a few lines are similar to some magazine article. This is again nonsense. Convention speeches are not 100% original ideas. The fact that ideas expressed were similarly expressed in one of thousands of other speeches or articles on the same subject does not concern me.<br />
<br />
<b>Trump Nomination Secure</b><br />
<br />
The biggest success so far is what did not happen. Attempts to contest the nomination or change the rules to bring the nomination into doubt have all been shot down. Trump will receive the nomination with little on camera controversy and the party will transition into the general election.<br />
<br />Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7474769149396715982.post-41888059653887029432016-07-15T06:24:00.001-04:002016-07-15T06:24:25.563-04:00Trump Picks Mike PenceDonald Trump has selected Indiana Governor Mike Pence to be his running mate on the Presidential ticket. Of the nearly two dozen possible VP picks I mentioned last month, Pence did not even make my list.<br />
<br />
Pence is a capable conservative Republican with considerable electoral experience. A couple of years ago, many thought he might run for President this year. Pence, however, did not seem to show much interest in a Presidential run. Given that he was up for reelection as Governor this year, that seemed to be his preferred course. <br />
<br />
The fact that Pence had criticized Trump during the primaries and endorsed Ted Cruz was not a deal breaker for Trump. Let's face it, pretty much everyone in the Republican Party had criticized Trump to some degree and endorsed on of his Primary opponents.<br />
<br />
As a white male, Pence does little to soften the opposition from women and minorities. It will not affect electoral politics by helping with a swing state. <br />
<br />
Pence does, however, give some gravitas to the ticket. Experience as a Congressman and Governor is the traditional sort of experience one expects for a national ticket. Pence is well respected in Republican and conservative circles. He has never been one to make outrageous statements to take many extreme positions, though he is quite clearly a right wing conservative. He has strong support among the religious right, Tea Partiers, and establishment Republican leaders.<br />
<br />
Pence's selection may help calm some fears of more traditional Republicans by convincing them that Trump will surround himself with an administration full of responsible adults and good conservatives. He should not alienate Trump's core support among white working class voters. He should not.<br />
<br />
Historically, Vice Presidents usually do not help a candidate. They can only hurt a ticket by behaving poorly or raising a scandal that takes attention from the top of the ticket. Pence would not seem to do any harm an seems like a highly respectable choice. If only the same could be said for the top of the ticket.Michael Troyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442115874718729592noreply@blogger.com0