Friday, January 20, 2017

Obama By The Numbers

Make America great again? The last guy pretty much did that.
Unemployment rate
Jan 1, 2001: 4.2%
Jan 1, 2008: 7.8%
Jan 1, 2016: 4.9%

Consumer confidence
Jan 2001: 94.7
Jan 2009: 60.1
Nov 2016: 93.8

GDP (2016 dollars)
Q4 2000: 14.32 trillion
Q4 2008: 16.37 trillion
Q3 2016: 18.68 trillion

Median household income (2015 dollars)
2000: $57,790
2008: $55,376
2015: $56,515

Dow Jones
Jan 2001: 15,002
Jan 20, 2009: 7,949
Jan 20, 2017: 19,822

States gaining nuclear weapons
Clinton: 2
Bush: 1
Obama: 0

Percentage without health insurance
2008: 16.8%
2009: 16.8%
2016: 10.5%

Approval when leaving office (Gallup)
Clinton: 66%
Bush: 34%
Obama: 58%
Trump today: 40%

Monday, December 12, 2016

How Salutary Will Be the Interference?

It's as if James Madison, writing in March 1788, was using some device to peer 228 years into the future when he wrote the following in Federalist 63.

"[T]here are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn."

"In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”
How salutary (beneficial) the interference--that is the question, isn't it? Safe to say, already, 39 days before inauguration day, that Trump will not sane-up and spare the republic this challenge.

Friday, December 09, 2016

Trump: It's About Power, Not Truth

When I was on a year abroad in Varanasi twenty years ago, we used to play a lot of games. Rock, paper, scissors was easily the most brutal. It is, fundamentally, a game of dominance. When you play it over and over again, you begin to see the psychological habits of your foes; use that advantage and you can crush a person's spirit by beating them so often.

One of the guys on the fellowship with us relayed the experience he had playing it in college. The variant they played came from Asia, and the symbol for paper was "chi." There's this common mistake players make, where the symbol for paper and scissors scramble in the brain and you end up doing a kind of Spock gesture. In Syed's gaming group, the "banned Spock chi" was permissible in one circumstance: if you knew that the other player was going for rock you could announce "banned Spock chi" as you were playing the gesture as a way of committing a kind of coup de grĂ¢ce to finish off a particularly pathetic foe. It was the move of ultimate dominance, because you were announcing your move ahead of time. It was a brutal way to go down.

This is the game Donald Trump is playing with his foes, and we don't realize it. Members of the media and the left have been mystified why Trump can behave so outrageously without consequence. He lies, he offends, he surrounds himself with sycophants, incompetents, and nuts, he loses his shit. Why don't the normal rules apply to him?, we wonder. It's because he's not playing by normal rules. Josh Marshall has been discussing this for months, and others have touched on it as well, but it was Masha Gessen was speaking on On the Media that it really hit home. 

In autocracies (particularly Putin's, with which she is most familiar), the valence of speech is entirely different. It is not used to communicate meaning in the conventional sense. It is used to project power and authority. One of the most effective ways to do that is to violate norms. Lying transparently, making bigoted comments, attacking people in public--these are incredibly effective ways of demonstrating your dominance. The real message is: I have just lied, we both know this was a lie, and you are powerless to do anything about it. When Trump does this, he's saying "banned Spock chi!" to America.

This is precisely the reason people support Trump. They understand this power play and delights them. They delight in it partly because there is nothing we can do about it, but also because the people to whom it's being done don't even realize what's happening. We don't understand the rules. The media dutifully reports Trump news as if he were playing by the old rules rather than running a propaganda war. Trump wants to jail people who burn the flag? Doesn't he realize this is unconstitutional? Let's have five think pieces that discuss whether this is viable, what Texas vs. Johnson tells us, and oh yeah, what about that time Hillary proposed a law against flag-burning? 

Trumpies must have found this response highly amusing.

We are relying on norms and institutions to navigate the Trump years, and we must--they distinguish functioning democracies from dysfunctional autocracies. But that doesn't mean we should continue to extend Trump the same deference we do other leaders. He is attempting an entirely undemocratic power play (for reasons we don't yet understand), and our failure to understand it only enables him. This is a dangerous moment.

Friday, December 02, 2016

Will Dems Learn the Wrong Lessons?

After any election the losing party has to retrench and figure out how to win the next election. There is always a risk that, in the throes of anguish, they will draw the wrong conclusions. I fear the Democrats are in grave danger of doing that. Let's start with some numbers:
Total votes (through 12/1)
Obama 2012: 65,918,507 (51%)
Clinton 2016: 65,224,847 (48%)

Trump 2016: 62,679,259 (46%)
Romney 2012: 60,934,407 (47%)

Michigan Vote
Trump margin: 10,704; Stein total: 51,463

Trump margin: 46,765; Stein total: 49,678

Trump Margin: 22,177; Stein total: 31,006
By the time all the votes are counted, Hillary will have won roughly the same number of votes Obama did in 2012, somewhere near 3 million more than Trump, and a full two percentage points more votes. She lost because 80,000 people scattered across three states tipped the electoral college in Trump's favor--fewer people than voted for a very marginal third-party candidate. She lost because her voters lived in the wrong state, not because there were fewer of them. (I would feel terrible if I lived in Wisconsin and voted Stein, but I don't think there's any value in saying she "threw" the election.)

In fact, it was Trump who overperformed Romney rather than Hillary underperforming Obama. His rancid, divisive message was squarely in the center of the GOP and fired them up. Remember all these things: he is NOT an outlier among Republicans and Republicans STILL can't appeal to a majority/plurality of Americans. They are a minority group far out of step with the rest of us. This is a hugely important point because reacting to this election as if the voters "rejected" Democratic arguments will lead to solutions to problems that don't exist. 

Nevertheless, Dems did lose the election, and it's worth considering the biggest reasons. We should assume for the moment that 47% of the electorate will never abandon a candidate from the Republican Party in a presidential election. The question is how you win the majority of the gettable voters in states that can throw an election. There were several divides demographically:
  • Race. For decades, the GOP has appealed covertly to white voters, and have slowly eroded their support among nonwhites. Trump was +20% among whites, and Clinton was +53% among nonwhites. This probably understates actual nonwhite totals, which are typically undercounted during exits (in the coming months, better data will emerge). Still, it's revealing enough. Note that this divide was especially exaggerated among the non-college educated. Whites without a college degree favored Trump by 37%; nonwhites favored Hillary by 56%.
  • Rural versus Urban. Voters in rural areas favored Trump by 27%, voters in urban areas favored Hillary by 26%. (They were evenly divided in the suburbs.)
  • Age and Gender. Men were +11% for Trump, women +23% for Hillary. Young people (under 44 years) were +14% for Hillary; oldsters favored Trump by eight.
  • Income. Despite all the hand-wringing about the white working class and Hillary's supposed toxicity because of her connection to Wall Street, she handily won among those earning less than $50k (+12%).
The incessant focus on the white working class conceals several truths here. Those voters are older and whiter than the population as a whole and shrinking as a slice of the electorate. The Democratic base of young, urban, nonwhite voters is growing and must be the center of the party's focus. I know, I know, but some guy who writes for Vox has an uncle in Ohio who voted for Trump and Obama. Please ignore these kinds of stories. They grossly distort who the Dems should actually be paying attention to.

Those numbers tell Dems who their voters are, but not what will appeal to them. Two days after the election, Pew surveyed voters and asked what the "very big problems" our leaders should be addressing. Among Dems, the top four answers were:
  • Gun violence (73% of respondents)
  • Gap between rich and poor (72%)
  • Climate change (66%)
  • Affordability of a college education (66%)
Hillary ran a terrible campaign, no question. (Though to be fair, it wasn't obvious how to run against a candidate like Trump; given a do-over I'm certain she'd make very different decisions.) She basically never mentioned any of these. All of these issues strike at the coalition Hillary should be cultivating of younger urban voters. Moreover, there are certain issues that Trump ran on which are actually central to Democratic policy: job opportunities for working-class Americans (63% of the GOP cited this), drug addiction (62% of the GOP cited it), and even infrastructure, which was an issue favored by Dems, but strongly highlighted by Trump. Antipathy to Wall Street, support for a social safety net (family leave, childcare), marijuana issues--there are a host of important issues that are broadly popular among most voters.

What the Dems should not be doing is moving to the right or trying to appease the party in power. Even among the GOP, far-right policies are unpopular. Americans on the left are angry and feel government has failed them because the GOP obstruct things. The GOP are angry and feel government has failed them because their leaders don't do what they say. Addressing the problem from the left should avoid at all costs helping Republicans achieve what they want. That will enervate their own base, empower their opposition--oh, and destroy much of what liberals care about.

Finally, Dems need to recognize that the country has been captured by a minority party. We have a rural, white minority controlling all levers of power in the federal government. That creates a toxic situation in which the majority are ruled against democratic norms by the minority. When you add the racial split into it (along with the country's history of slavery and Jim Crow racism), when the winning (minority) candidate ran on a nakedly nativist platform, the whole thing is an irredeemable, anti-democratic mess. In addressing this situation, Dems absolutely must (for once!) act like they have the winning arguments, even if they lost the election. Because they do.

We'll see what they actually do in the coming weeks.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Trump Beats Hillary 46 to 48%

There's a lot to say about the election of Donald J. Trump, but maybe less is more. Today I'll constrain myself to a comment on the process, in which a man who got fewer of the votes was selected president--the second time in the last five contests. It's not only at the Presidential level. In the Senate, Dems have won 53% of the votes over the past three elections (since Senators are elected for a six-year cycle, that captures the elections of all current Senators, minus deaths etc), while winning exactly the same number of seats. I haven't seen numbers for the House, but in 2014, they won 57% of the seats but just 53% of the votes. And of course in 2012, House Republicans won a majority of seats but a minority of votes.

The Republican Party now controls both chambers of Congress and the White House despite being a minority party. When Donald Trump said the elections were rigged, he wasn't wrong. They were rigged back in the 18th century, however, to give slave-owning white Southern men disproportionate influence in government. The rigging has been with us a long time.

Update. As of December 2, Hillary is leading by 2,547,490 votes, or 1.9 percentage points. Title updated to reflect this evolution.

Tuesday, November 08, 2016


Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the United States.

Friday, November 04, 2016

The GOP Loses if Trump Wins

Buried beneath all the drama and ugliness of this election is a truth I don't think many people have examined: if Trump wins the election on Tuesday, it's going to be very bad for Republicans' prospects as a viable party long term. Whether they win or lose, fundamental realities of their fractured coalition will call that question eventually, but if Trump loses, the Party will hang together as an oppositional force against Hillary Clinton.

The malignancy of the Trump campaign did not seriously fracture Republican support of the candidate, because with Clinton members all had a common enemy. With a President Clinton, the Party can turn again to a common enemy. We'll see skirmishes for power in the House, but the ultimate endgame--gridlock, endless investigations, a potential impeachment--will paper over divisions. Republicans in the Senate will likely be a minority, and they'll turn to procedural rules to impede the body's function. Nothing rallies the base so fast as the prospect of a good impeachment.

During the Obama era, Republicans honed their skill at outrage and obstruction, the key pillars of any effective opposition party. With none of their actual policy goals at stake, it was easy to stay united. But if Trump wins, the GOP can't stay an oppositional Party. It would, in the event of a Trump win, almost certainly, hold all levers of government. Policy accomplishments now become the prize of power, and realizing them will expose the warring factions' differing goals. Once a strong coalition of a corporate donor class, religious conservatives, and neoconservatives, a post-Trump GOP would be guided by Trumpies (fueled by racial grievance, in favor of social welfare programs, and opposed to trade and foreign adventures). The voter base that supports these positions was drawn from the previous coalitions, leaving them all weaker--and in the case of the donor class and neoconservatives, in direct conflict with the base.

Since the Nixon era, the GOP has managed to use white resentment as a way of cementing power among these groups. Trump's campaign made the implicit explicit, and he ran on a platform of white supremacy. That demon, once loosed to the public, can't be quietly ignored while the GOP's usual business--tax cuts, a war on abortion, deregulation and promotion of corporate rights, war--come back to the fore. People want a wall, they want Muslims out of their communities, they want trade deals nullified, they want "illegals" deported. Most of these things are anathema to standard-issue Republicans.

There might be a few issues they could come together on, like guns, abortion, and coal, but these are mostly not the groups' top issues. Worse, issues like nullifying Obamacare are riven with danger, since the GOP's misinformation campaign has obscured all the benefits people have under its provisions. But it's more likely that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will push the issues they always have--massive tax cuts for the wealthy, new trade deals (it's high on the party platform), re-deregulate Wall Street, cutting future benefits to Social Security and Medicare, and radically slashing social programs. None of these things will be popular with the Trumpie base, and where will all that white resentment go if the GOP don't immediately pander to it?

Then there's the issue of Trump as president. It is frankly inconceivable to think of a non-catastrophic Trump administration. The best-case scenario is a shadow government headed by traditional GOP elites, perhaps lead by Mike Pence. Even in that scenario, it's impossible to imagine President Trump not saying things that embarrass the party and enrage allies. There are many scenarios of disaster--too many to speculate on.

After a year of in-fighting and bad leadership, the midterm elections would force the divisions wide open. Primary challengers will emerge both for and against the Trump loyalists. If Trump loses, the Party can forestall the reckoning. (Maybe.) But if he wins, the reckoning begins in a few weeks' time, as the coalitions gear up to seize power. No one is thinking about this now, but I don't see how any other outcome is possible. The Republican Party might survive a Trump candidacy; surviving a Trump presidency will be much, much harder.