Final Projections: Clinton 323 Electoral Votes
51 Democratic Senate seats,
GOP House
November 8th, 2016, 12:45am by Sam Wang
Here are the final snapshots.
Four Senate races are within one percentage point: Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Democracy Revisited
As you may have seen, a large group, hundreds of political scientists, have signed a letter denouncing the candidacy of Trump, because:
"1. He has cast doubt on the validity of the election process, without any supporting evidence.
2. He has stated that he may reject the outcome of a free election if he does not win.
3. He has encouraged supporters to engage in voter suppression and intimidation.
4. He has threatened to jail the leader of the opposition party.
5. He has questioned the independence of the judiciary and the impartiality of judges based on their race, ethnicity, religion, and parentage.
6. He has impugned the loyalty of citizens and other persons in the United States on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, and country of birth.
7. He has endangered freedom of the press by intimidating individual journalists, banning major news organizations from his rallies, and promising to change libel laws.
8. He has called for the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
9. He has threatened to destroy the strategic basis of NATO, the most important security alliance of the last seventy years, by questioning the commitment of the United States to regard an attack on any member state as an attack on all.
For all these reasons and despite our own indifference on matters of politics and partisanship, we stand united in the conviction that a Trump presidency would pose a grave threat to American democracy and to other democratic governments around the world."
Of the nine listed reasons, each of which notes an extreme position, seven identify grave threats to the political process inherent to a democrat. The other two, #8 and #9, represent extreme, but arguably legitimate political positions. Still, that is a quibble and it's heartening that the political scientists saw the need to speak out as experts on the process and therefore, the grave threats to the fundamental institutions in a democracy.
Hanging Chads and All
Phil Musser appeared on CNBC this morning to represent the Republican side in an exchange of politicos about the election and the aftermath. Musser has a long history in Republican politics having worked for the 1996 Dole advance team, 2000 Bush advance team, GWB White House, 2007 Romney campaign, and so on. Musser expressed concerns about the potential for a close vote in Ohio saying something to the effect:
If there is any uncertainty about the outcome in Ohio or any uncertainty at all, the consequences of an angry population can be very shocking, very severe.
Many pundits are saying this, but Musser went on:
"You're talking to someone who was banging on the door [makes banging hand motion], hanging chads and all in the 2000 Florida recount."
Wait a second. What is he saying? We need to fear an angry backlash of regular citizens upset about a Trump loss because we witnessed a staged "Brooks Brothers riot" in 2000 of hired Bush political operatives, mostly the regular staff, who were sent to Palm Beach in a swarm to launch what news media eagerly described as a citizen's protest against the recount. But then, in a way, he's right. The reason we need to fear is that in 2000, the drummed up anger could be contained to a staged riot by hired hands. But this year, the Republican establishment has lost control of the process and handed it to DT who has upped the ante on drumming up angry protest with threats of violence.
If there is any uncertainty about the outcome in Ohio or any uncertainty at all, the consequences of an angry population can be very shocking, very severe.
Many pundits are saying this, but Musser went on:
"You're talking to someone who was banging on the door [makes banging hand motion], hanging chads and all in the 2000 Florida recount."
 |
| source: salon.com |
Monday, November 7, 2016
The Day After Tomorrow - Where Will You Be
Republican strategy began over twenty years ago to be a multi-pronged approach to
(1) preach smaller government, meaning minimal Federal government, while
(2) fomenting anger and resentment using right wing media to garner and maintain political support,
(3) avoiding serious consideration of legitimate political issues.
Today, with the logical result being Trumpism, the new strategy becomes trying to contain the caged animal they created, while fostering development of an effectively Confederation form of government within a nominally Federal republic, almost a shadow government. The Supreme Court will be diminished because no justices will be confirmed while Clinton is president, if the Senate is Republican. Congress will be tied up in meaningless investigations in the House and endless confirmation hearings with no intention to approve SC justices or other Federal judges. No federal laws. No treaties. The weakening of the Presidency and Supreme Court will make the Congress preeminent, with democracy weakened by voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the poisoning of political discourse with constant fact denial. The goal is de facto confederation, just as confederation in the form of the Confederacy was the goal in 1861. The difference being in 1861 the Union was not along for the ride.
Republican officeholders will predictably deny the obstructionist strategy, but the goal could not be clearer from their actions. They will accuse the president of acting illegally and, yes, they will search for excuses to impeach the president in the House. The biggest surprise would be no impeachment of Hillary Clinton. Most likely the next two years will be consumed by the building of a case against her (actual case yet to be determined), with the goal of impeachment and trial in the lame duck session following the 2018 midterm elections.
In theory, as the NYT editorializes "Senate Democrats would have an obligation to consider and vote on his [Trump's] nominees" sounds proper, but is that realistic? Republicans long ago reduced the functioning of the federal government to an exercise in game theory. McConnell's announcement that the Senate would never consider the president's Supreme Court nominee means in the iterative game, Democrats are expected to cooperate in the interest of preserving democracy, (because that is what dos Dems do) while Republicans continue to refuse to cooperate because that achieves the government they want. Watch for the Republican strategy to escalate as they seek "facts" to support disqualification of nominees - judges, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, in order to draw out the process indefinitely.
Suppose
(1) Clinton wins and is able to assume the presidency without obstruction January 20, 2017,
(2) the House is controlled by Republicans, and
(3) the Senate is 50-50 or so.
What to expect:
December 9, one month away, is a critical date for Congress to approve a budget to extend funding through the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2017, or for a shorter period of time. The most likely outcome will be approval of a continuing resolution to fund the government for three months or so. Republicans will then have the opportunity to stall out the federal government early in Clinton's first months in office.
Merrick Garland will not be approved by the Senate in the current 2016 term, even though he is at least as moderate as any likely Clinton appointee and some Senate Republicans favor approving his nomination now because he is older than the typical nominee. However, due to the Republican need to effect policy on contentious social issues and voting strategy in the courts rather than through legislation, the Supreme Court nomination approval process will become more of a scorched earth strategy than ever. Stalling on nominations also ties up the Senate, taking positive energy away from legislating, thus achieving that goal.
Whether or not the House will continue to hold the purely symbolic votes repeal the Affordable Act is difficult to predict. House leaders may hold a small number of such votes, but may try to keep the total spanning multiple Congresses below 100 times (unless it is already over 100).
Ruth Bader Ginsburg will resign from the Supreme Court, but will try to wait for completion of the approval process for the current open seat. If no justice is approved due to obstruction by Republicans in the Senate, she will face a tough choice, but may resign anyway at a critical moment in the approval process, hoping to apply political pressure on the Republicans. So she may resign effective with the end of the term on June 30, 2017. Alternatively, she or another justice may pass away unexpectedly.
The Republican Party will continue to be torn by internal dissension, but Republican leaders will do whatever it takes to hold together their coalition without compromising with Democrats except in the most extreme cases. If Ryan remains as Speaker, he is likely to suffer the same fate as Boehner, but that may take a year or two to play out.
Some analysts predict that House Democrats could reach a consensus with a small group of moderate Republicans to make the House a functioning body and offset the power of the most extreme Republican members. Unfortunately, the House will likely have a smaller, more conservative Republican majority, making accommodation with Democrats less likely.
If Trump loses, as expected, we may see severe resistance to the will of the people. No predictions on where that goes. Simultaneously, several Senate races could be so close that a recount is automatic or requested by the candidate with fewer votes. This scenario could leave the control of the Senate in doubt for weeks after the election.
We will hear concerns about "legitimacy" frequently over the next four years in discussions about the functioning of the presidency and the courts.
No predictions if Trump wins.
Why no predictions if Trump wins?
(1) Trump is so extreme. He might act consisten with the conduct of his campaign, but he may not.
(2) Based on accuracy in the past, we lean toward the Sam Wang forecast model:
As of November 7, 2:07PM EST:Snapshot (221 state polls): Clinton 313, Trump 225 Electoral Votes Meta-margin: Clinton +2.7%
Clinton Nov. win probability: random drift >99%, Bayesian >99%
Senate snapshot (48 polls): Dem+Ind: 50, GOP: 50, Meta-margin: D +0.7%, Nov. control probability: Dem. 79%
These result do not consider potential impact of voter suppression efforts in states like North Carolina and Arizona. We shall see...
(1) preach smaller government, meaning minimal Federal government, while
(2) fomenting anger and resentment using right wing media to garner and maintain political support,
(3) avoiding serious consideration of legitimate political issues.
Today, with the logical result being Trumpism, the new strategy becomes trying to contain the caged animal they created, while fostering development of an effectively Confederation form of government within a nominally Federal republic, almost a shadow government. The Supreme Court will be diminished because no justices will be confirmed while Clinton is president, if the Senate is Republican. Congress will be tied up in meaningless investigations in the House and endless confirmation hearings with no intention to approve SC justices or other Federal judges. No federal laws. No treaties. The weakening of the Presidency and Supreme Court will make the Congress preeminent, with democracy weakened by voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the poisoning of political discourse with constant fact denial. The goal is de facto confederation, just as confederation in the form of the Confederacy was the goal in 1861. The difference being in 1861 the Union was not along for the ride.
Republican officeholders will predictably deny the obstructionist strategy, but the goal could not be clearer from their actions. They will accuse the president of acting illegally and, yes, they will search for excuses to impeach the president in the House. The biggest surprise would be no impeachment of Hillary Clinton. Most likely the next two years will be consumed by the building of a case against her (actual case yet to be determined), with the goal of impeachment and trial in the lame duck session following the 2018 midterm elections.
In theory, as the NYT editorializes "Senate Democrats would have an obligation to consider and vote on his [Trump's] nominees" sounds proper, but is that realistic? Republicans long ago reduced the functioning of the federal government to an exercise in game theory. McConnell's announcement that the Senate would never consider the president's Supreme Court nominee means in the iterative game, Democrats are expected to cooperate in the interest of preserving democracy, (because that is what dos Dems do) while Republicans continue to refuse to cooperate because that achieves the government they want. Watch for the Republican strategy to escalate as they seek "facts" to support disqualification of nominees - judges, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, in order to draw out the process indefinitely.
Suppose
(1) Clinton wins and is able to assume the presidency without obstruction January 20, 2017,
(2) the House is controlled by Republicans, and
(3) the Senate is 50-50 or so.
What to expect:
December 9, one month away, is a critical date for Congress to approve a budget to extend funding through the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2017, or for a shorter period of time. The most likely outcome will be approval of a continuing resolution to fund the government for three months or so. Republicans will then have the opportunity to stall out the federal government early in Clinton's first months in office.
Merrick Garland will not be approved by the Senate in the current 2016 term, even though he is at least as moderate as any likely Clinton appointee and some Senate Republicans favor approving his nomination now because he is older than the typical nominee. However, due to the Republican need to effect policy on contentious social issues and voting strategy in the courts rather than through legislation, the Supreme Court nomination approval process will become more of a scorched earth strategy than ever. Stalling on nominations also ties up the Senate, taking positive energy away from legislating, thus achieving that goal.
Whether or not the House will continue to hold the purely symbolic votes repeal the Affordable Act is difficult to predict. House leaders may hold a small number of such votes, but may try to keep the total spanning multiple Congresses below 100 times (unless it is already over 100).
Ruth Bader Ginsburg will resign from the Supreme Court, but will try to wait for completion of the approval process for the current open seat. If no justice is approved due to obstruction by Republicans in the Senate, she will face a tough choice, but may resign anyway at a critical moment in the approval process, hoping to apply political pressure on the Republicans. So she may resign effective with the end of the term on June 30, 2017. Alternatively, she or another justice may pass away unexpectedly.
The Republican Party will continue to be torn by internal dissension, but Republican leaders will do whatever it takes to hold together their coalition without compromising with Democrats except in the most extreme cases. If Ryan remains as Speaker, he is likely to suffer the same fate as Boehner, but that may take a year or two to play out.
Some analysts predict that House Democrats could reach a consensus with a small group of moderate Republicans to make the House a functioning body and offset the power of the most extreme Republican members. Unfortunately, the House will likely have a smaller, more conservative Republican majority, making accommodation with Democrats less likely.
If Trump loses, as expected, we may see severe resistance to the will of the people. No predictions on where that goes. Simultaneously, several Senate races could be so close that a recount is automatic or requested by the candidate with fewer votes. This scenario could leave the control of the Senate in doubt for weeks after the election.
We will hear concerns about "legitimacy" frequently over the next four years in discussions about the functioning of the presidency and the courts.
No predictions if Trump wins.
Why no predictions if Trump wins?
(1) Trump is so extreme. He might act consisten with the conduct of his campaign, but he may not.
(2) Based on accuracy in the past, we lean toward the Sam Wang forecast model:
As of November 7, 2:07PM EST:Snapshot (221 state polls): Clinton 313, Trump 225 Electoral Votes Meta-margin: Clinton +2.7%
Clinton Nov. win probability: random drift >99%, Bayesian >99%
Senate snapshot (48 polls): Dem+Ind: 50, GOP: 50, Meta-margin: D +0.7%, Nov. control probability: Dem. 79%
These result do not consider potential impact of voter suppression efforts in states like North Carolina and Arizona. We shall see...
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Balancing Act
Interesting article in the Washington Monthly by Nancy LeTourneau yesterday revealing the Trumpian source of New York Times hit pieces on Hillary Clinton. Apparently the nonprofit "Government Accountability Institute" was co-founded by Steve Bannon, formerly of Breitbart and now Trump's campaign advisor, with Peter Schweizer, GAI's president and author of Clinton Cash. Mainstream news reporters would pick up the allegations made by Schweizer. The right wing machine would then pick the same stories back from the "left-wing" media once they had the imprimatur of the mainstream, thus "weaponizing" the allegations with more credibility than if they had only appeared on Breitbart in the first place.
A key element of the problem for journalism in addition to the constraint on resources is the antiquated fair and balanced model of so-called objective journalism. The right wing media machine feeds the need for false balance that the NYT craves for the appearance of objectivity. The NYT sees themselves as "liberal" and they therefore need stories with a conservative slant. This tilt to the right to achieve "balance" is illustrated by the choice of Liz Spayd for public editor at NYT. How else to explain the public editor position that the claims of false equivalence can be ignored without regard to the merits ---because most of those making the argument are liberals. Only if we recognize that Spayd thinks like a conservative is it clear that is why she was chosen as public editor- for balance--because the Times considers themselves so liberal.
A key element of the problem for journalism in addition to the constraint on resources is the antiquated fair and balanced model of so-called objective journalism. The right wing media machine feeds the need for false balance that the NYT craves for the appearance of objectivity. The NYT sees themselves as "liberal" and they therefore need stories with a conservative slant. This tilt to the right to achieve "balance" is illustrated by the choice of Liz Spayd for public editor at NYT. How else to explain the public editor position that the claims of false equivalence can be ignored without regard to the merits ---because most of those making the argument are liberals. Only if we recognize that Spayd thinks like a conservative is it clear that is why she was chosen as public editor- for balance--because the Times considers themselves so liberal.
For Propaganda 101 we need Journalism 2.0
Beyond Lying: Donald Trump's Authoritarian Reality correctly identifies problems with elite media coverage of Trump, but not the solution. By "elite media" we mean any news organization that considers itself above the fray, seeking to report "unbiased" political news coverage. So Jason Stanley, a philosophy professor at Yale and author of "How Propaganda Works" tells us:
"On a certain level, the media lacked the vocabulary to describe what was happening. Trump was denounced repeatedly for “lying” and at times the apparently more egregious “bald faced lying.” But that is not a sufficient description."
He correctly goes on to make comparisons to totalitarianism, but for the solution he goes on to say:
"This campaign season has been an indictment of our understanding of mass communication. Either we lacked the ability or concepts to describe authoritarian propaganda, or we lacked the will. Either way, we must do better."
So he has missed the source of the problem. As we have stated endlessly on this blog, in a world in which Fox News exists alongside a willingness of Republican strategists to scrap traditional norms of behavior--both in campaigns and in governance, the traditional media elite needs to reflect on their failures and do better - not by trying harder, but by doing something different.
Having an opinion is not the same as being opinionated. Everyone has an opinion, but in most jobs, a person can understand the difference between doing the job well and behaving as an advocate for a cause. The sloppiness of the media elite derives from working so hard to avoid any appearance of bias instead of working hard to accurately depict what is really going on in context. They let Donald Trump define himself and they let Donald Trump and Republican strategists define Hillary Clinton. Note the asymmetry there between the doer and the done-to. The NYT media elite response to the Fox News propaganda strategy has been to avoid updating their journalistic standards for this reality, in effect doubling down on a strategy in hopes of everything working out in the end. However, the success of Fox News as propagandistic journalism working in tandem with Republican strategists has been to create a media machine that feeds the beliefs of conservatives to avoid compromise with those who disagree with them at all costs, now defined by them as their enemy. This posture is a threat to democratic institutions.
The NYT media elite needs to hire reporters who value accurate depiction of reality over any opinion or bias they may have. They need to report what they observe, as completely as possible, and not follow the trail defined by one side or the other in a "he said/she said " "fair and balanced" road to nowhere.
"On a certain level, the media lacked the vocabulary to describe what was happening. Trump was denounced repeatedly for “lying” and at times the apparently more egregious “bald faced lying.” But that is not a sufficient description."
He correctly goes on to make comparisons to totalitarianism, but for the solution he goes on to say:
"This campaign season has been an indictment of our understanding of mass communication. Either we lacked the ability or concepts to describe authoritarian propaganda, or we lacked the will. Either way, we must do better."
So he has missed the source of the problem. As we have stated endlessly on this blog, in a world in which Fox News exists alongside a willingness of Republican strategists to scrap traditional norms of behavior--both in campaigns and in governance, the traditional media elite needs to reflect on their failures and do better - not by trying harder, but by doing something different.
Having an opinion is not the same as being opinionated. Everyone has an opinion, but in most jobs, a person can understand the difference between doing the job well and behaving as an advocate for a cause. The sloppiness of the media elite derives from working so hard to avoid any appearance of bias instead of working hard to accurately depict what is really going on in context. They let Donald Trump define himself and they let Donald Trump and Republican strategists define Hillary Clinton. Note the asymmetry there between the doer and the done-to. The NYT media elite response to the Fox News propaganda strategy has been to avoid updating their journalistic standards for this reality, in effect doubling down on a strategy in hopes of everything working out in the end. However, the success of Fox News as propagandistic journalism working in tandem with Republican strategists has been to create a media machine that feeds the beliefs of conservatives to avoid compromise with those who disagree with them at all costs, now defined by them as their enemy. This posture is a threat to democratic institutions.
The NYT media elite needs to hire reporters who value accurate depiction of reality over any opinion or bias they may have. They need to report what they observe, as completely as possible, and not follow the trail defined by one side or the other in a "he said/she said " "fair and balanced" road to nowhere.
Friday, November 4, 2016
S&P 500 falls for ninth straight session
So the S&P 500 stock market index fell for the ninth straight session for the first time since 1980. Not a surprise if a Donald Trump win signals disaster with him as president. Not a surprise if a Hillary Clinton win signals even more destructive obstruction in the Congress with Republicans in control of the House and possibly in control or able to obstruct all progress in the Senate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)