On the eve of the third debate

Ok, 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.

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.

Even so, if the election were held today, Clinton would almost certainly win.

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.

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 attacked 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

In the meantime, Trump's Grope-gate had taken up most of the air time.  People seem far more focused on that for now.

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.

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!).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Second Clinton-Trump Debate

The Second Presidential Debate:

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.

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.

Bragging about Sex:

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.

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.

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.

Clinton Wall Street Speeches

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.

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.

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.

Send Hillary to Jail

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.

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.

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.

Trump Sets off Bimbo Eruptions

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.

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.

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.

Trump v. Pence

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.

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.

Taxes

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.

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.

Trump Still Falling

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:

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.

Republicans Won't Dump Trump

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.

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 did this in 2002 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.

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.

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?

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.

First Clinton Trump Debate

Many of my blogs talk about polls and other relatively neutral data.  Today I will be discussing my personal impressions and opinions about the debate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ncxt week the Vice Presidential Candidates debate.

Trump Evens Up the Race Before First Debate

At 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.