One of the most important things about the debate is how it is covered afterwards.

How the media respond to the debate, how they weave it in to the wider narrative and incorporate the events on stage into their analysis and coverage is for my money even more important than the actual content of the debate.

A lot of people watch the debates. But many, many more will see stories about it or hear their friends talk about it. The use of words like ‘shaky’, ‘stumbling’, ‘uncertain’, ‘mediocre’ can be used about you in the preface or by-line of stories all over the internet and newspapers. Nightly bulletins will lead with phrases like ‘widely considered to have lost the debate’ or ‘trying to recover from his debate defeat’. Its like some form of Chinese water torture, eroding support, momentum and credibility day by day. A declarative sentence is scarcely to be found, and yet people reading and watching the coverage will be left with an unmistakable impression that you are losing.

This is one of those ‘narrative and positioning’ things i keep banging on about. Its not just that a good performance get you votes, the good performance gets you good coverage. And that is really what you are after. A good performance can sustain and build your campaign in the short term, but it is the consistent positive attention that really builds support and alters perceptions.

Trump has been feeling the rough end of this particular stick since the last debate. Early polls show that Clinton may have received a bounce from her performance. But more importantly for The Donald, he has been mentioned in connection with weakness, incompetence, ill-preparedness and failure in publications across the land. Clips have been replayed ad nauseum on youtube and the news showing him in a less than favorable light. Weeks of stories about growing trump support have abruptly stopped, and now people are talking about Clinton’s comeback.

To what extent this comeback will materialize remains to be seen. But this is exactly the sort of coverage likely to lead her back to ascendancy.

Watch this space.

Presidential debates are very odd beasts. In most debates your objective is to meet your standard of proof and hammer home your point. Presidential debates on the other hand are to a certain extent political theater. The person who wins the debate is the person who gets the most out of it in terms of popular support, not necessarily the person who actually wins the ‘debate’.

It is often said that in politics you are usually playing in an empty stadium. The debate, where hundreds of millions of people watch the candidates perform in real time, is one of the few exceptions to this rule. Consequently debate night is one of the best opportunities to change the narrative of the campaign, influence the broad thematic messaging and create genuine moments of contrast between the two candidates. So they are always quite important.

In a close election such as this that importance is magnified. But what exactly is each candidate trying to do?

Clinton has very little to prove on the stage. She has done this a million times before. Everyone already assumes she can be articulate, knowledgeable and disciplined. Reinforcing those perceptions is always valuable, but is not her primary aim. What she needed to do last night was knock Trump off his game, consolidate her image as the adult in the room and allow Trump all the rope he needs with which to hang himself.

Trump, on the other hand, has a very great deal to prove. Having eaten away Clinton’s lead almost entirely over the last seven weeks, last night was Trump’s moment to show he could be more moderate, more restrained, more presidential and convince the American people that they could live with him in the oval office for 4 years. While Clinton needed to avoid being knocked out, Trump was under some pressure to deliver something of a bloody nose to the former Secretary of State. So how did they do?

Clinton

Well, let’s start with Clinton. Because she frankly makes a lot more sense, and is thus easier to analyse. She had two main avenues of attack:

1. Trump’s plan is vestigial at best, is trickle-down economics that will benefit only the few and has no detail. Whereas my plan will invest in you, invest in jobs, infrastructure and raise the minimum wage.
2. Trump himself, his biography and his values.

These two points are mutually supporting. He has bad policy because he has bad values, and his bad policy displays his bad values. She showed a clear understanding of the issues, was able to explain her plan simply and link it to peoples lives. She kept repeating that line, invest in you. I like that formulation, as it shows not just a contrast of policy but a contrast in terms of values and focus. It is implicit in the statement that Trump cares more about himself and less about you than Clinton.

But the attacks on Trump are where I think the real story in this debate is. Clinton needled Trump over his serial bankruptcy, his habitual use of illegal labour, his consistent fraud against contractors and his probable avoidance of income taxes average Americans have no option but to pay. These are the moments when it was visibly obvious how irritated Trump was. My only criticism on this score is that she didn’t really close the deal. Look at this quotation for instance:

‘Do the thousands of people that you have stiffed over the course of your business not deserve some kind of apology from someone who has taken their labor, taken the goods that they produced, and then refused to pay them? I can only say that I’m certainly relieved that my late father never did business with you. He provided a good middle-class life for us, but the people he worked for, he expected the bargain to be kept on both sides.’

This is a great way to discredit Trump’s business record, and turn it into a liability. But in my humble opinion, if she had ended with something to clarify in the minds of everyone watching that she is the custodian of American values of hard work and fairness it would have had more impact. ‘The American people deserve a president who understands a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, not one who will rob them blind and declare bankruptcy’ or some such formulation.

On the whole, I think Clinton did very well. She avoided getting knocked down, landed a few punches and allowed her opponent to flail wildly and expend his energy fruitlessly. She needs to sharpen her answers on trade and come up with a way of distancing herself from the legacy of Obama and her husband while maintaining ownership of the values people associate with them. Some sort of ‘I’m running for President, not my husband. Get it right, Donald’ type maneuver.

Trump

Oh dear. Now I’m afraid this is where the wheels come off. Analyzing Donald Trump’s debating style is like analyzing the flight-path of a flightless bird. He fails to meet even elementary standards of proof, evidence, argumentation and honesty. If he had been one of the debaters I used to coach there would have been stern words at the end of the night.

So let’s start with the good. That I can analyse. He landed some good knocks early on about trade, that perennial driver of his candidacy. He paints a picture using very dark hues, a picture where the American people are being bled white by incompetently administered and fallaciously conceived trade agreements. Canny operators all over the world, from China to Dubai, are eating away the substance of the U.S Economy in some highly conspiratorial and underhanded manner.

That is a persuasive narrative. It appeals to sundry fictions and prejudices, and like most false arguments tries to make a simple summation of a complex problem. A summation that is easy to believe, and seductive in its capacity to re-enforce what you already think.

But then Clinton started asking him how he would fix it. And… there is just nothing there. The Emperor has no clothes. So that fizzled out a bit.

Trump also made some headway by painting Clinton as the establishment candidate. This is the obvious and wise move, pinning the entire status quo on her at a time when the establishment is monstrously unpopular.

But Trump has run into a problem. He is no longer crowded on a stage with 9 other guys, fighting for time. And it really seems like he is just intellectually and temperamentally incapable of speaking at length in a cogent fashion. Where once the camera would have cut away to some other participant, now he is stuck staring down into the hungering darkness of the lens.

Did you notice how he never gives specifics? Not just about facts and figures, but about anything at all really. Everything is ‘tremendous’, ‘great’, ‘big’ or ‘terrible’. All numbers are converted to ‘many’, ‘huge’ or the aforementioned ‘tremendous’. It’s like he thinks in some kind of idiot-algebra, plugging meaningless modifiers into rafts of pablum and lashing them together with the words ‘really’ ‘it’s true’ or my personal favorite ‘I’m right’. Perhaps he can survive from soundbite to soundbite, but under the glare of the stage-lights you can see his whole thought process whirring like a merry-go-round. Starting in one place, running the full gamut of his vocabulary and returning to the start making no more sense than it did before. This would not pass muster in a first year university course. ‘Tremendous scholars agree….’, ‘Huge problems with that thesis’. You would be laughed out of the room.

In case you think I’m being pejorative here, let’s look at some examples of him just tossing together word salad right before our eyes.

• ‘And look at her website. You know what? It’s no difference than this. She’s telling us how to fight ISIS. Just go to her website. She tells you how to fight ISIS on her website. I don’t think General Douglas MacArthur would like that too much.
  • Here he seems to be implying that revealing your policy on ISIS is somehow tipping your hand. As if ISIS cares about our tactics in the first place. But notice the confused tone? The call and response? The way he repeats points line on line he has already made? And why its important what Dougy MacArthur thought about anything is utterly beyond me.
• ‘See, you’re telling the enemy everything you want to do. No wonder you’ve been fighting — no wonder you’ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.’
  • So either he thinks Clinton is 20 or that ISIS is 50. Alternatively, he is unable to speak sensibly in public. All three options are concerning.

• ‘Well, I’m really calling for major jobs, because the wealthy are going create tremendous jobs. They’re going to expand their companies. They’re going to do a tremendous job.’
  • Tremendous! Major, Tremendous jobs! Don’t ask me how, just know that it’s going to be tremendous. He uses this word like he just found it in the dictionary yesterday.
• ‘The Fed is doing political — by keeping the interest rates at this level. And believe me: The day Obama goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you’re going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job. The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton.’
  • Is he making a criticism of the policy of quantitative easing? Perhaps he has some thoughts on monetary policy and achieving growth without inflation? We will never know, because this statement makes no sense. He never follows it up, never explains himself. I wonder if even he knows what he means.
• ‘The Obama administration, from the time they’ve come in, is over 230 years’ worth of debt, and he’s topped it. He’s doubled it in a course of almost eight years, seven-and-a-half years, to be semi- exact.’
  • I have no earthly idea what he is talking about here. What is 230 years worth of debt? How does one be ‘semi-exact’? Forget that he seems to think syntax is for other people, I’m not totally convinced he understands how a budget works. Or else he is just lying. That is probably more likely.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. And if you look into his business history and his idea of his own talent, it kinda makes sense. In The Art of the Deal, Trump basically recommends this sort thing. His entire career has been built on either sweetheart deals with politicians to avoid taxes and such things or talking up his assets and their value to an insane degree. It’s a kind of braggadocio business model where acumen and mendacity are interchangeable. My point is this isn’t a perversity of Trump-As-Candidate. This is the garden variety Donald. This is how he operates. This is, in a very real sense, his business. His brand is his asset, and he rents that asset to his creditors in exchange for them allowing him to continue to live in the building with his name on it.

So who won the debate? Well, we won’t really know that until the polls start to come out. There are a few already, but none I particularly trust. But on points you would have to give it to Clinton. It is clear to me now that, having watched Trump for a year and a half now, we have seen all there is to see of him. David Axelrod calls running for president an ‘MRI for the soul’. Whoever you really are at bottom will come out. Trump has no more rabbits to pull out of his hat. What you see really is what you get, as disappointing as that may be.

If I had to make a bet I would say that Clinton made more headway than Trump. But I will be surprised if it moves the polls by more than a couple of points. This is going to be a long, grinding slog of an election campaign that will probably come down to mobilizing the base and getting the voters you need to the polls rather than any kind of nuanced argument.

Lyndon Johnson’s dictum on elections was that you win by ‘not losing’. Clinton didn’t lose yesterday, and if she continues to not lose she may in fact become President. Because Trump needs to knock her down to build himself up. Clinton just needs to keep moving forward.

 

As i have often stressed here, the Congress is really the determining factor in whether a President’s agenda gets off the ground or not. The Democrats taking back control of the Senate would be a great help to a Clinton presidency, and a great obstacle to a Trump presidency. But what are the chances?

There are 34 seats currently up for re-election in the Senate. Senators serve six year terms, so this crop was elected in 2010. Elections like 2010 which fall in non-presidential years have a generally whiter and older electorate, favoring the Republican party. So although many of these seats are not in competitive states, the fact that candidates are facing a headwind relative to 2010 means there are still quite a few in play. Possibly enough to re-take control of the chamber. So where are the Democrats best hopes? Lets look down the list in order of plausibility.

Wisconsin- Feingold v Johnson

If the Democrats can’t win in Wisconsin, they should really just give up now. Feingold is helped by the much stronger turnout among the states large college population in Presidential elections, making the electorate he faces in 2016 much more favorable than the last time he faced Johnson i 2010. Johnson has also not distinguished himself in the senate the way one would hope. Feingold is also on the progressive wing of the Democratic party, able to plausibly make the case for the support of the Sanders voters who helped Bernie out in the primary.

Illinois- Kirk v Duckworth

Illinois is a very Democratic state. But such was the Republican wave of 2010 that it reached even here, and now that it has receded Senator Mark Kirk has been left stranded far from home. He is that rarest of things, a moderate Republican. Over recent months he has been struggling heroically to try and distance himself from Donald Trump, who stands approximately zero chance of winning Kirk’s state. Duckworth is ahead and has been for some time. Kirk is not disastrously behind, and could still win it, but at this stage he seems headed for defeat. According to most demographic models Duckworth should win by 10, so Kirk is already out-performing his party in the state considerably. But i’m not sure it will be enough.

Indiana- Bayh v Young

Indiana is more conservative than the either Illinois to the west or Ohio to the est. Part of this is how it was settled, with more colonists coming from the south than many of its neighbors. In any case, it is not the easiest territory for a Democrat these days. The Democratic candidate is Evan Bayh, former Governor and Senator from Indiana. His father was also Senator for nearly twenty years. In a well-funded campaign he is currently running well ahead of Young, who is also racing to fill the seat vacated by retiring Senator Dan Coates. Polls have Bayh up by 7, and with his high levels of name recognition and positive approval ratings i don’t see that changing without something going badly wrong. This should be another pickup for the Democrats.

Pensylvania- Toomey v McGinty

Pat Toomey was the head of the Club For Growth, a right-wing advocacy organisation and lobby group. In 2010 he won the Senate seat in moderate Pennsylvania that had been held by liberal Republican Arlen Specter, Specter himself having been knocked off after switching parties by Joe Sestak in the primary. But as his party has moved further and further to the right, re-election for Toomey has become increasingly dubious. It was always going to be a bit of a slog for a fairly conservative Republican in a state like Pennsylvania, but he has been unable to stake out more moderate positions on a lot of issues, and McGinty is currently edging ahead in polls. I would say this one is a tossup. If one candidate or the other over-performs their Pennsylvania polls in the Presidential election, it could swing the state one way or another. As of now i think this one is much too close to call, but if i had to bet i would put my money on McGinty just because of the demographics of the electorate.

Missouri- Kander V Blunt

Incumbent Senator Roy Blunt is facing a challenge from Missouri Secretary of State and veteran Jason Kander. Kander is a pretty good candidate for what is a fairly red state. But although he was once quite close to Blunt, he is now behind by about 5. I would say its about as likely that Kander can win here as it is that Kirk can win in Illinois. Both are facing fairly hostile state electorates with in-built demographic disadvantages. But by the same token, both are only behind by about 5. That is not an insurmountable gap. I would put Missouri down towards the bottom of lists of possible Democratic gains.

North Carolina- Burr v Ross

Deborah Ross (Member of the North Carolina state legislature) is challenging sitting senator Richard Burr. And while this may seem quixotic considering how she has been polling for much of the race, there are some factors currently in her favor. As i have observed here before, Trump is not doing so well in North Carolina. The Republican governor is quite unpopular, and is also running for re-election in a close race. Democrats are also putting more resources into North Carolina, both on a presidential level and down ballot, than has often been the case. If the Democrats are having a good night, Ross could pull off something of an upset if recent polls are to be believed. She has closed to within less than five, possibly even into a dead heat. With the riots and protests in North Carolina over recent days  i wouldn’t be at all surprised if we see the polling move decisively in favor of one candidate or another. Such events often serve to focus voters and sharpen contrasts. A good night for the Democrats could quite easily include a win in North Carolina. But there are so many moving parts to this race that i’m skeptical of people calling odds.

Florida- Rubio v Murphy 

Marco Rubio is running for the Senate. Again. After much wringing of hands following his failed Presidential bid, he decided not to leave politics after all. Apparently he doesn’t even like the senate. Which makes it seem rather unsporting of him to run again and deprive Representative Murphy of the chance to be Senator, a job he at least seems to want. In any case Rubio seems to be cruising towards re-election, ahead as he is by 8 points in recent polls. Again, not a crushing lead. But solid enough for me to conclude this is not likely to be a Democratic gain unless they are having a really, really good night. Rubio is a big enough name that he is unlikely to be swamped by any anti-Trump backlash. On the contrary, Trump is ahead in Florida right now, so it should come as no surprise that Rubio is also doing quite well. But Florida is still a tempting target for the Democrats. Its a swing state, its quite moderate, its really big with a lot of fundraising potential and most of all winning here would effectively put Marco Rubio back in the cupboard for a cycle at least.

So those are the most swinging of the swing-seats. A few look certain to go from blue to red this November. And while every seat helps, getting to a majority allows you to fill the senatorial leadership and set the agenda. So keep an eye on the Presidential election, by all means. But don’t forget, it’s in the Senate and House of Representatives that much of the governing gets done.

 

 

‘Is Trump right about anything?’. A learned friend of mine posted to me this question today. And it bears thinking about. When i write here i generally try and explain concepts or understand things in such a way as to beat some kind of rough sense into the world. While engaged in this pursuit it may not clear to you, dear reader, exactly what my feelings on Donald J. Trump are.

I loathe him. Not merely the cut-price P.T Barnum tribute act he puts on when he is on stage but his entire spiritual and intellectual being. I simply do not and will not believe that there is a single thought of any human usefulness lurking within the emaciated husk he is pleased to call his mind. The very idea that he could occupy the same office as Johnson, Eisenhower, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Cleveland, Madison, Adams, Jefferson and Washington is a vile sacrilege. But is he wrong about everything?

Sadly the answer is no. Politics would be much easier if we could confine all vice to our opponents and all  virtue to ourselves. Unfortunately this is wrong, even now. For even as i sit here watching Trump’s obese Orange bulk standing on stage, protruding like a fat middle finger to all the patriots and public servants who have come before him, he is not wrong about everything.

Trade

I’m not opposed to free trade. Having offered that act of supplication to the Neo-liberal consensus, let me state the obvious. A lot of people have lost out from free trade. The economist Schumpeter talked about ‘creative destruction’ being an integral part of Capitalism. Business are out-competed or outmoded, and are replaced by new structures. While i believe this to be true, its  a hard argument to make to a 50 year old Steel worker who is out of a job andn living in a community with already high unemployment. Trump is right to say that more must be done to bring new business to areas devastated by the slow death of the ‘old economy’. He lies about what he will do, but his belief that this is a problem is not wrong.

Investment 

The United States has an infrastructure problem. Successive governments have failed to invest in roads, bridges, railways, ports, water treatment plants and so on. Trump has stated frequently that he thinks the country needs such investments to compete on the global stage and increase efficiency. I think he is right about this. I  have yet to see any detail, but America does indeed need renewal and modernization of its infrastructure. So he is also not wrong about that.

Wages

The U.S. federal Minimum Wage is abysmal. Most states are little to no better. Some of them, as well as some cities have started raising the mandated minimum wage. Trump has made some encouraging noises on this issue. He seems to say (depending on which contradictory statement you take) that he will raise the federal minimum wage, but by less than Clinton. Even if it only raises it by a few dollars and hour, that would translate to a great improvement both in the economic prospects of the country and the lives of millions of workers. So i think Trump is broadly right about wages, in that we need to increase the minimum in some  way. While to outsiders this might sound axiomatic given the scenario the U.S. finds itself in, in Republican circles this is wildly fringe. Many of them don’t believe in a mandated minimum wage at all. So give Trump some credit here.

Terrorism

With this one is hall have to tread carefully. Don’t misunderstand me, i am not talking about his proposal to halt all Muslim migration. Or his noxious exhalation regarding the torture of the families of terrorists. The irrational doctrine espoused by many on my own side on this issue is a constant source of anxiety to me. Clinton, Obama and others are seemingly terrified to call a spade a spade and state the obvious connection between the doctrine of radical Islamism (Wahabism, Islamic Fundamentalism or whatever else you choose to call it) and the acts carried out by its adherents. Terrorist attacks carried out by such persons, according to Clinton, are almost always because of poverty, disenfranchisement and other concerns disconnected from their religious faith. I believe this is a necessary component of the problem, but not a sufficient cause. Trump, on the other hand, is quite up front that our fight is with the theocratic and violent minority within the worlds huge Muslim population. So he is right about that. Unfortunately i give him little to no credit for this, as i think he is motivated by racism, xenophobia and belligerence rather than a sober appreciation of the ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis.

 

Migration 

Trump often says that a country must have secure borders. In this regard he agrees with the orthodoxy extant since at least the Treaty of Westphalia. I think there is a pretty strong argument that people who live and work in the country should be known to the government, especially in these times of insecurity and concern about the capacity of individuals to wreak havoc. He has even said he would be in favor of a large legal migration program. My problem is that this would happen after he has deported tens of millions of American residents, the partents of children who are citizens, to their countries of origin. So while i agree a nation must secure its borders and control the flow of migration, as well as institute some form of identification for those here (so they can get drivers licenses, go to hospitals, take out insurance and so on) i do not agree that this should be used as a mere smoke-screen to justify what i consider anti-Hispanic bigotry.

 

So no, Trump isn’t wrong about everything. If he was i very much doubt we would be talking about him. Donald Trump may be a broken and poorly functioning human, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Because even a broken clock is right twice a day.

It may seem like elections are a fight about competing answers to questions of national importance. More taxes or less? Less wars or more? Abortion, yes or no? The entrenched positions, the binary opposites and the false dichotomy’s abound.

But this isn’t actually the case. Elections are battles about what question we are actually asking. They are about the conversation itself.  Is the question ‘how can we grow the economy?’ or ‘How can we make our economy more equal?’. Which one of those you pick will determine which candidate wins. If its just about growth, the Republicans will win that argument. If its about fairness, the Democrats will win. Its just how it works. Same goes for a host of other issues. Is the question on taxes about fairness or liberty? Fairness, Democrats win. Liberty, Republicans win.

Imagine your house is falling apart. Imagine everything needs to be fixed. If your question is ‘Who can make the lights work again?’ you go for the electrician. He is always banging on about how important wiring is and how great electricity can be. Whereas if your question is ‘Who can help me have a shower this morning?’ you are going to call the plumber. Ok so the analogy isn’t perfect but you get the picture.

The latest manifestation of this phenomenon is on the question of foreign policy. It seems if you ask voters right now ‘who would you trust to run American foreign policy?’ Clinton wins by a large margin. Conversely, if you ask the same people ‘who do you trust to fight Terrorism?’ Trump comes out ahead. Of course they are talking about functionally the same thing.

So how will the bombings in New York and New Jersey effect the race? That really depends on what question it causes the media to run with and what concerns it raises for people. If it makes them want a serious foreign policy solution that focuses the race on competence and knowledge and relationships with world leaders, Hillary will clean up.

On the other hand, if it rouses the populace to righteous fury  and makes them want to just start blowing things up and to hell with the consequences Trump is the only choice.

Events are the bane of the political strategist. The best laid plans of mice and men seldom survive contact with the roiling chaos that is our modern world. Ask George W. Bush. He entered the White House with a whole agenda of domestic reform and withdrawal from the field of ‘nation building’ abroad typified by President Clinton’s policy in the Balkans. And then September 11, 2001 happened.

So how will these acts of criminality and terrorism effect the race?

It depends on what questions you ask.

If Clinton hasn’t improved her polling within about two weeks i’m going to start to worry. But does that mean she is going to lose? Not necessarily. And here is why.

Clinton is currently predicted to win, even taking into account the rise in Trump’s support nationally. That is because the national polls only really matter as an indication of state voting patterns. Winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college is very rare, but it does happen. Ask Al Gore.

Getting to 270 electoral votes is the name of the game. The reason I am optimistic even at this sad juncture is that it is still easier to get to 270 Electoral Votes if you are Clinton. Solidly Democratic states like California, New York and Massachusets where there is little to no chance of a Trump victory are almost certain to deliver Clinton 191 electoral votes. These states have voted Democratic in most cases since 2000. And that isn’t likely to change.

In addition to these there are five states currently considered ‘battlegrounds’ where historical precedent and current polling leads me to believe the former Secretary of State will win. These are Minnesota(16), Wisconsin(10), Michigan(16), Pennsylvania(20) and Virginia(13).

Lets take these in order.

Minnesota 

Current polls have Clinton up by 4 in this state. This number is obviously not stellar. However, when one considers that Trump has never taken the lead in a single poll of Minnesota i feel fairly confident that this one will end up in the blue column, as it has done for many cycles before.

Wisconsin

This is one of the states where Trump is making a big push. Even though Clinton currently leads by 4 the theory goes that white, male working-class voters without college degrees will power Trump to victory. Like Minnesota, Wisconsin has a small minority population with comparatively few African-American or Hispanic voters. This suits Trump quite well, as those voters seem to despise him according to every available metric. But Wisconsin also has a large population of college-educated White voters and the suburban voters who still remain highly sceptical of the Trump phenomenon. This is one reason why Trump has yet to lead in a single poll of the state, and why i don’t see it turning Red this November.

Michigan

Clinton is up in this state too, by 3-5 points if polls are to be believed. Notice a pattern? This state is fertile ground for the Trump message in many ways. Few places in America have been more hollowed-out by the death of the ‘old economy’ than Michigan. If the Trumpian narrative is to work anywhere, it should be here. What is more, Trump has in fact led in Michigan according to polls. Unfortunately for him this was only twice, once over a month ago in an Ipsos survey (reasonably trustworthy) and most recently in a Survey Monkey poll. Survey Monkey is garbage. I don’t believe them. I won’t go into the intricacies, sufficed to say i don’t think they do good work. Even taking these polls into account, the average comes out in Clinton’s favor by about 3 points. There is also a very large African-American population in Michigan, especially in cities such as Detroit (Motown, anyone?) which is not helpful for Trump. I would say a win here for the Human Hairdo is more likely than in Minnesota and Wisconsin, but not by much.

Pennsylvania 

Not going to happen. Every cycle, the Republicans think they can get Pennsylvania. But their plans always seem to founder when they remember that Philadelphia exists. The City of Brotherly Love has a large African-American population and a significant college educated population. Both of these are key groups Trump is failing to persuade. Even if he could counter-act the problems he has with these two groups with huge support from working class white voters, he has another problem. His numbers with Women (You know, the ones that make up half the population? That ‘Minority’?) are just terrible. And there are many such people in the sprawling suburbs around Philadelphia. Trump has made a concerted push to win over this particular demographic recently, to little discernible effect. Again, Trump has yet to win a poll in Pennsylvania. Clinton is ahead by about 4-6 points as far as polling goes. Funny that.

Virginia

The Old Dominion is an interesting one, and I must admit I am a bit surprised by its performance. It used to be reliably Republican until Obama flipped it in 08. Now it seems even safer than many of the states listed above. But when we look at the makeup of the state this is less surprising. There has always been a large African-American population in Virginia. That is not a good sign as far as Trump is concerned. Even worse for him though is the fact that in recent years as Washington has grown its suburbs have spilled over the state border and into Virginia, injecting large numbers of comparatively affluent suburban and black voters into the electorate. Virginia also has several large and prestigious Universities and a large population of college-educated voters, particularly in the north of the state. All these factors help explain why Clinton is between 4 and 6 points ahead in surveys, and why Trump has yet to come first in a single poll here. It seems fairly unlikely to me he will be able to reverse this trend and win come November.

So where does that leave us?

Those five states, plus the 191 ‘safe’ Democratic votes give us 266 votes that can plausibly be put in the Blue column. That means she only needs four more electoral votes to secure a majority. This is the crucial factor in my mind. Because Trump and Clinton are essentially tied right now in Florida(29), North Carolina (18), Iowa(6) and Nevada (6). The race is also very tight in Ohio (18), although if you had to put money on it now you would probably back Trump in that state. No Republican has won the presidency without Ohio. Ever. Not once. It tends to trend marginally more to the right than the national average, so it shouldn’t be surprising that in a close election Trump is ahead here. But no Republican has won without Florida since 1922, so Trump’s performance there is equally important to watch. Secretary Clinton can win the election by taking any one of the states above. Trump, on the other hand, needs to win ALL of them. That makes Clinton’s life a lot easier, and Trump’s a lot harder. What is more, winning a large state like Florida and its 29 electoral votes can counteract stuff-ups elsewhere on the map. It gives Clinton some margin for error while affording Trump none.

 

Consistency Matters 

Polling, particularly public polling, is an inexact art. But when you start getting the same number over and over again, as we do with Clinton’s polling in the swing states, it is worth taking notice. Even if that number is not totally accurate it can be instructive of trends and relative strength. The consistency of the polls in places like Virginia and Wisconsin right now should trouble Trump as it shows he has a very narrow avenue for victory that requires many factors aligning in his favor. Clinton, by contrast, has a variety of ways to mathematically put together 270 electoral votes not dependent on her performance in any one geographic region or any one demographic bloc.

Is this Clinton’s Nadir?

This analysis is also predicated on the assumption that this is the ‘new normal’. But if this is Clinton’s political low-water mark, the map could look very different. Even a movement of one or two percent in the national polling towards Clinton could put new states on the table for her that we were talking about only a few weeks ago and where Trump is still comparatively weak like Georgia or Arizona. A lot depends on whether this is the new reality of public perception or a passing phase caused by bad news coverage for Clinton.

Only time will tell, but right now i am increasingly persuaded that even in a 50-50 election the map favors Clinton, and allows her more chances of forming a winning coalition.

 

Remember that ‘Trump Comeback’ I wrote about a while ago?

It’s here! Politico, Huffpost, Fivethirtyeight, CNN, NYtimes…Everyone! They all say so! Clinton is no longer leading or is behind in Georgia, Florida, Ohio and Nevada! Panic! The free world is going to be led by a serial bankrupt and demonstrated fraudster!

Right. Now my duty as a talking head to mouth off in an alarming fashion has been discharged, let’s get down to business. Particularly let’s talk about why this doesn’t surprise me, why it shouldn’t surprise you and why this is not a reason to start moving to Canada. Or Mars. The fundamental reason is that we should always have expected this to be a close election. And as ahistorical and unusual as Trump seems to be at first glance, even he cannot escape the historical dynamics that shape the political process. He is a player in the system, no matter how he may wish otherwise. I view this whole correction as a reversion to what we can be generously described as normal, not a departure from predictability.

The Economy, Stupid

In the immortal words of Jimmy Carville (I know i quote him a lot, but he says interesting things OK?) It’s the Economy, stupid. The U.S. is seeing some cause for optimism in economic terms, but the numbers are still not great. To put it bluntly it’s the type of recovery that feels to most people like no recovery at all. Huge sections of the country and the electorate are not feeling the love as far as investment, wages and employment are concerned. And there is a significant correlation historically between economic performance and support for the incumbent party. If things don’t seem to be going well, people are less likely to re-up for four more years. This is one of the main arguments used against Carter. Reagan looked down the barrel of the camera in that debate and asked the American people if they were really better off than four years ago, if they felt more secure or more prosperous. And most said no. So ended the reign of the Peanut King.

So according to economic indicators, we should expect this election to be fairly close. Everyone seems to think Trump is so repulsive he would counter-act this dynamic. I’m sorry, but he is just not that kind of a special snowflake. It hurts my bleeding Liberal heart to say, but Ronald Reagan he ain’t.

The Third Term

Electing presidents of the same party for the third time in a row is quite rare. It happens, but most of the time the opposition party either benefits from antipathy towards the incumbent (Obama, 08) or absorbs part of the successful incumbents strategy and message (Clinton, 92). Winning 3 on the trot is difficult, and historically unlikely. So we should expect Clinton to be facing some headwind, even taking into account Obama now having an approval rating above 50%. So again, a close election is what we should expect.

Clinton is really unpopular

Cards on the table, I like Clinton a lot. I wanted her over Obama in 2008. And I think she would do a great job as chief executive. But there are two problems. Firstly, she is not very good at campaigning. Being the Placido Domingo figure in front of the crowd, drinking-in the spotlight and applause as her husband does so readily is just not how she operates as a human. She is an introvert trying to behave like an extrovert, and people can tell. Back in the days before the 24 hour new cycle, before TV and YouTube, she would have thrived. Now one needs movie-star charisma. And that she does not have. But that is more a reason why she can’t seem to shake her unpopularity.

The second reason she is unpopular is a combination of her own eccentricities (she is a very private person) and the fact that she has been the subject of almost unrelenting hatchet jobs for most of the last three decades. At this point many conservatives and Bernie supporters will cry foul. She is crooked, they will cry. That was all fair game, there was no ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ as Hillary so famously put it. I find that line of argument laughable. One day I’ll do a whole post on the vicious and well-funded attack campaigns that have been targeted at her as First Lady, Senator and then Secretary of State. Right now I am inclined to confine my arguments to a single word. Benghazi.

The Right have been after her scalp for most of my life. The fact they have not managed to claim it is, to me, testament to her determination and stoicism rather than any kind of political skill. If anyone in modern American politics is the equivalent of Rocky Balboa it is she. No matter what is thrown at her, she just keeps pushing forward.

Now I have many reservations about her as a candidate and in all candor would have much preferred if Joe Biden had entered the race, but the key question is this: Do her atrocious numbers line up with her actions in the real world? I’m firmly convinced they do not. There is something else going on here.

At the risk of alienating many further, I think its pretty obvious that sexism plays a role. The idea that it is coincidence that her numbers seem so very unhinged when equivalent male politicians are viewed so favourably is a non-starter for me. From the way the presidency is viewed, to expectations of how women will act, to how we treat equivalent statements from male versus female politicians I think there is a strong case to be made that a male politician who did all the same things would be in a much better position. That he would not be called ‘shrill’ so very often, that he would not be derided for his clothing so often, that he would not be accused of physical weakness so often. Nor would it be assumed that there is some kind of binary choice between ambiiton and love of family. That her marriage is one of convenience. Or, most disgustingly in my opinion, that staying with your partner after an act of infidelity must be a cynical calculation rather than an expression of loyalty and commitment.

My over-arching point here is that she is not very popular with huge sections of the electorate. They don’t like her, and so it would be somewhat amazing for her to be winning by a huge margin. Especially when the above factors are added to the equation.

A House Divided

I know I keep going back to this point, but it bears repeating. The U.S right now is more deeply divided than it has been for a long time. You know that feeling you get when you look at Trump? The sick feeling in your stomach? The utter incomprehension how such a thing could happen? The feeling that the  baseline of rationality and decency  you always assumed was there holding us all up had suddenly fallen away? Above all, the sudden shocking realization that a lot of people didn’t share your values after all?

That is how much of the country felt about Obama. And now Clinton. That is what it is to be in a culture war. I keep hearing people say ‘But how can they vote for him? He is evil!’. Yes, to you he is evil. But the factor that needs to hit home in order to understand the Trump phenomenon is that much of America is not like you. Not within driving distance of being like you. And one of the unfortunate aspects of Democracy is that those people have as much right to see themselves represented as you do.

They have been locked out of discourse. Left behind in the ‘old economy’. Derided as uncomprehending rubes in thrall to racist delusions and bigoted, xenophobic dogma. And all that may be true, it really depends where you stand. But they like Trump. Because he treats them as if they matter, as if they are important, as if they are in charge. It is the flip-side of the same coin that brought Jeremy Corbyn to the top of the Labour party in the UK. A sudden, intoxicating realization that the political process could represent you at last, that someone who shared your values could be in charge. A moment when you look around and realize you are not alone in your anger and discontent after all. And that maybe, just maybe, you can do something about it.

That is what drives Trump, to the extent that he is being driven at all. And I have already established in prior posts why I think his political success and acumen is over-stated. Being the Republican nominee will get you about 40% pretty much regardless of who you are. Clinton being unpopular will get you a little more. The economy being pretty mediocre will get you a sliver more than that. It was never realistic to believe half the Republican voters in the country would stay home or suddenly have a Damascene conversion to progressive politics. Because Clinton is inconsistent with their values and desires. And Trump is the only real option.

So why was Clinton so far ahead before?

Well, there are a number of factors in my opinion that explain this.

Firstly, Clinton got a much bigger ‘bounce’ in the polls from her convention. It was better managed, had excellent speakers in prime-time, stayed on message and included a positive roll-out of the candidates biography.

Secondly, Trump’s campaign has only recently started becoming more ‘professionalized’. Stories from the last month abound regarding the GOP nominee finally coming around to political reality and starting to do things ‘normal’ candidates would have been doing for ages. Running ads, hiring more staff, ramping up fundraising, building a get out the vote operation, investing in analytics and data. All these are starting to slowly pay dividends for Trump.

Lastly, Clinton has had a shocker. Vision of her collapsing and having to be lifted into a secret service van, stories about her pneumonia, vague intimations of shadiness regarding health disclosure, the ‘gaffe’ about Trump supporters. All these stories take their toll to one extent or another. And so while she has been recuperating in New York, Trump has been out campaigning hard. That is reflected in the polls.

So what happens now?

I think this will be a close election. But if I were a betting man I would still put my money on Clinton. Polls go up and down, news cycles fluctuate from positive to negative, events shake things up. There are still eight weeks of hard campaigning left. Elections can be won and lost in a lot less. So don’t fly off the handlebars and abandon all hope quite yet. But don’t expect a crushing landslide either. Both of those things would be improbable. And by their very nature, improbable events are unlikely to happen. My money is on a small Clinton victory powered by minorities and college-educated white voters and secured by victories in the traditional ‘Blue Wall’ democratic heartland and the affluent suburbs of Northern Virginia.

The weekend just passed two things happened which consumed much of the news cycle. The first was Clinton making a statement at a fundraiser regarding Trump supporters many have considered controversial. The other was the former secretary of state coming down with what doctors have since said is pneumonia, being forced to cut short an event and recuperate at her daughters apartment. Today i want to look at the Trump ‘gaffe’ So what happened, and what does it mean for the campaign?

The Basket of Deplorables

Clinton referred to ‘half’ of Trump’s supporters as being in what she calls the ‘Basket of Deplorables’. For starters, i think this is an amazing phrase. A basket of deplorables sounds like something ACME would sell to Wiley Coyote. First off, lets have a look at the whole passage so we can see the remark in context.:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

For starters, its understandable why Republicans are upset by this. Most people don’t  want to think they are in a coalition with racists. And it should be clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that racism in america can’t be confined to a single party, to say nothing of sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and islamophobia. But there are four things i want to say about this.

Racists are more likely to support trump

Polling evidence is overwhelming that those who hold negative views of one race or another are more likely to support the GOP nominee. While racism is obviously hard to poll, indicators can be found quite easily. Even with a conservative and charitable interpretation of the data, this is difficult to ignore. For instance, you can ask how willing individuals would be to vote for a presidential candidate who is African-American or Hispanic. Even attitudes towards different types of people moving in to your neighborhood can give an indication of views on groups of people. Its important not to make too much of this data, limited as it is, but the implications are clear. What i will for want of a better word call the trump ‘coalition’ seems to hold these markers with much greater frequency and regularity than the opposing Clinton bloc. They certainly exist, but at this stage its pretty clear that if you are a little bit to a lot racist, you are more likely to be a Trump supporter than a Clinton supporter.

Where i have a problem with Clinton’s statement is when she says ‘half’. Could it be as high as half? Sure. But considering the data i personally believe that estimate is on the high side. But that is sort of immaterial. Even if it was a third, or a quarter, that is a sizable chunk of his vote. One he couldn’t win without. That should surprise nobody, because…

Trump’s campaign has been race-baiting from the beginning

Remember when Trump refused to admit the first Afircan-American president was born in the U.S? Even when confronted with incontrovertible proof, he denied it for years . Or when he described an esteemed American judge as a ‘Mexican’? Then there was the proposed ban on Muslim migration, an unenforceable and unconstitutional nightmare of a policy proposal that would never get off the ground. When endorsed by David Duke, the well known oxygen-thief and Klan leader, he refused to distance himself for longer than any ethically responsible person would.

People often do not realize that Trump is NOT running a traditional conservative. Many of his policies, from trade to the minimum wage and infrastructure, are quite liberal when compared to his fellow Republicans. His anti-Hispanic rhetoric, his bellicose, prejudiced, bloviating ignorance is not a bug. These were the stances that allowed him to be on te stage with other Republicans. Without them, he would never have been allowed to stand there and make his arguments. He would have been simply cast out. But these sorts of ideas have currency in the modern Republican party, and in many parts of the union. That is because…

The GOP is diverging from the electorate 

Over the past cycles the American electorate has become younger, more diverse and more educated. By contrast the Republican primary electorate, and the Republican general election coalition, has become older, whiter and less well educated. That is how he can get away with this. His racist statements are the passport he used to get himself onto the Republican stage. They are not an accident, they are a feature. And this needs to be pointed out. Unfortunately these days calling someone a racist has lost much of its currency. Accusations fly so thick and fast on social media that the charge of bigotry is no longer taken as seriously as it once was. We have, in some sense, cried wolf too many times. So how to inject a serious criticism of Trump as a racist, when everyone kinda already knows he is?

I’m not at all sure this is an accident

This was not a poorly expressed thought. Apparently she has been using a variation of this line in fundraisers for weeks now. The difference is, this one was the first open to the press. There is just no way the campaign wouldn’t vet the candidates prepared remarks with this in mind. If i were a betting man, i would put good money that this is not in fact a gaffe at all. Look at how sympathetic Clinton is in the last half of her statement. She offers a diagnosis of the problems of many who support Trump that couches their antipathy and anger in the most relatable possible terms.

Another reason i think this is a set of remarks intended to excite controversy rather than a mistaken utterance is that i find it hard to believe anyone actually offended by it would concievably vote Clinton. Moderate independents and swing voters however? I can see them being galvanized against Trump by this sort of thing.

Will it work?

Who can say. But i don’t think she lost anything. If anything such a ‘gaffe’ makes her seem more authentic. But how it plays in the media will be determinative. Once again, time will tell.

A lot of my friends view American politics as a kind of showcase of the trans-mundane. Issues that would be quickly dealt with by other Democracies seem to become intractable, and propositions that are almost axiomatic elsewhere in the developed world are somehow highly disputed in the U.S.

There are a variety of reasons for this. But today i want to focus on the Senate, because more often than not it its the Senate that acts as a roadblock to measures that are widely popular outside Congress and approved of by the House of Representatives. So why is this so?

There are two crucial factors in my opinion. So lets take them in order.

Representation

Representation in the senate is not equal. The U.S started off as confederation of separate states, with each concerned about the domination by others. This was especially prevalent in smaller states that were concerned their voice would be drowned out by the more populous and wealthy states. To deal with this problem representation in the Senate was apportioned equally between the states. Each state gets 2 senators, irrespective of its population.

To put that in perspective, Wyoming has one senator per 300,000 people. California on the other hand has one senator per 20,000,000 people. Just let that sink in for a second. Nearly forty million total Californians have the same influence on the senate as the roughly  600,000 Wyomingites. So the smaller states have a vastly disproportionate influence on the Senate and thus legislation.

That is very important, because right now the Republican party is much more successful in many of the over-represented smaller states than the Democrats. States like Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Nebraska provide reliable seats to the GOP wildly out of kilter with their populations. By contrast, New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and other such large states which generally vote Democrat are under-represented.

There are exceptions to this rule. Texas is a huge and populous state where Republicans dominate that still receives only two senators, just as Georgia and North Carolina receive less influence than they probably should. And the partisan effect of this system has varied over time. It used to be that Democrats dominated these small states and used that domination to secure control of Congress for decades. So it should not be seen in any sense as a sort of Republican gerrymander. That is just how it is operating now.

The real effect of this apportionment of seats is that it gives weight to the voices of smaller states. That is why a public option (like Medicare or the NHS) couldn’t be inserted in the healthcare bill. Such a bill could pass the House of Representatives at the time, where seats were apportioned basically according to a states population, but was quickly knocked on the head in the Senate. The public option was also popular in the country, with a clear majority in favor. But it was not popular in the small electorates that make up so much of the senate. So the minority was able to use its augmented influence to block it.

So the senate isn’t fairly apportioned. Which isn’t news, as it was designed that way. But it is important to remember when considering why things are so very hard to do sometimes. The system isn’t broken, it was built that way. Its meant to be a lot harder to get things done that it is to stop them being done. Which brings us to the second reason obstruction in the Senate is so effective.

The Filibuster

This one is really very simple. Although it takes 50 votes +1 to pass a bill in the senate, it takes 60 votes to stop everyone from talking and move on to other business.  As long as you keep talking and don’t yield the floor to anyone you can delay voting on a bill indefinitely. And if you do it long enough, the Senate will have to move on to other business.

This is meant as an expression of the right of free speech as well as a protection for the minority. The implicit bargain is that the majority allows the minority to block things even with less than half the chamber on condition the minority won’t misuse that power. Theoretically the filibuster is meant for very important legislation, not just for stuff you don’t agree with.

The problem is now it is almost the default. So in order to get something even marginally contentious, or to be honest anything at all, passed in the Senate you need 60 votes. And because of how the votes are apportioned between the states it is incredibly hard to get to 60. Parties have to win in places far outside of their traditional bases of support to get to that number. Because getting voters in Massachusetts and North Dakota on the same side is hard.

Why not simply get rid of the rule? Well, thats simple. Because although it is frustrating when you are in the majority with the bulk of the voters at your back, when you are the minority defending your principles against the mob things can look very different. The same Democrats who couldn’t get the healthcare law they wanted passed because of the filibuster are now using it to delay all sorts of insane Republican policies the GOP dominated House sends them. Without the ability to block bills from the minority this legislation would all sail through. And so the filibuster persists.

What does this mean? 

The United States right now is very deeply divided along partisan and political lines, and the system is designed to protect minority opinion. So don’t expect another New Deal. Don’t expect sweeping changes in the next term. The country is undergoing a profound demographic and political transition. Until that transition is more fully realized and a new consensus can form, progress will be intensely fought and violently partisan. The population has very different ideas about how society should be organised, what should be America’s place in the world and what constitutes a good and ethical life.  And the holders of these divergent opinions will be represented in Congress as is their right.

So when will the dysfunction end?

When the voters decide what it is they want. For instance, when will abortion stop being such a hot button issue? Not when people in Washington decide to ignore it. They are merely standing on the shoulders of voters. It won’t go away until there stops being a market for that opinion.

The senate is weird. And it stops things from getting done. But whether that is good or bad really depends on where you sit on the political spectrum and in the chamber. But its also why the Senate elections are worth watching. Because make no mistake, the agenda of the next President will most likely live and die in the Senate.

 

One of the strange things about the U.S. Political system is that many people, including commentators who really should know better, focus almost solely on presidential politics. One could excused for thinking that the United States was an elective monarchy. So much time is given to scrutinizing candidates for Commander in Chief, and so prominent is that office, that it is easy to forget just how limited its powers are.

The President is commander in chief of the armed forces to be sure. He also directs the agencies of the Federal government, and his assent is necessary in most cases to make a law. But to be honest, he has less power over his nation than many other leaders have over theirs.

Consider Westminster democracies, for instance. The Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, Britain and New Zealand all have considerable powers and privileges the U.S President does not enjoy.

Wheras the Westminster system requires a working majority on the floor of the legislature in order to form government, the Presidency and hence the Executive in the American system are separate. This means that the President must try and get support for his agenda from a legislature with its own imperatives, interests and eccentricities rather than simply directing the action of his subordinates as would a Prime Minister.

This is a point i really cant over-emphasize. In order for any of these wild schemes of Trump’s to happen even assuming eventuality of his election he would require  solid and supportive majority in congress.

Lets examine how one of these offices might stymie a potential Trump Presidential agenda. Because although we hear so much about the President, where domestic policy is concerned the Speaker really holds the cards. This office performs many of the roles of Prime Minister in other systems. The current holder is Paul Ryan, the 2012 Republican VP nominee.

He decides what the House does. He decides when and if a certain bill gets voted on. He rallies the troops, keeps them in line and enforces order upon the unruly Republican caucus. If you want to get a bill passed in Washington, you really need to get Paul Ryan on board. This goes for the president also. Because if it involves taxes, spending or legislation of any kind and El Presidente wants it Ryan doesn’t need to just be on board. He needs to do it for you. The President has no vote in Congress. He is entirely reliant on supporters and surrogates in Congress pushing his agenda for him.

The White House comes with a tremendously large bully pulpit of course. This is one of the primary levers the President has, really. Truman described the situation thus:

‘The people can never understand why the President does not use his powers to make them behave. Well all the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway.’  

This is important, because Paul Ryan is not that crazy. He is pretty aggressively white-bread to be honest. He is a very wonkish man from Minnesota who enjoys preparing specimen budgets and talking about growing the conservative movement. The vital difference between he and Trump is that Ryan is palpably concerned with governance. He wants to be in power, run the country, shrink the government and balance the budget.

We’ll leave aside for the moment the fact that his budget proposals are violently over-optimistic in their assumptions and utterly antithetical to what i consider fundamental ethical and practical concerns. Because even though its a bad plan, it shows some level of understanding and engagement with reality. He spells the names of agencies correctly, he uses graphs, he comes up with ideas for savings and programs. He is, in other words, an adult. A conservative adult, but an adult none the less. And right now that puts him head and shoulders above most of the clown car of mediocrity parading itself before us.

So even in Trump wins, are we going to see a wall between the U.S. And Mexico? No. Of course not. Aside from the fact it can’t be done, Paul Ryan will not give him the money to build it. Nor would he fund the new agency Trump  would certainly be needed to round up and deport the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the united states. He won’t pass offensive and unenforceable laws forbidding Muslims from entering the United States.  All of these will be total non-starters.

Once you take this into account it is clear how content-free and foolish most of Trumps output is. He is discussing things that are not possible. He is like the candidate for class president promising everyone the bubblers will dispense chocolate milk and lunch will last all day. Whether he is sincere or not isn’t important, his promises are outside of the power of his office.

Trump has no deep institutional support within the Republican Party worth speaking of. All his support seems at this stage to be conditional, the party treating him as some sort of hurricane they can ride out. I can’t see them going to the wall at his request or making deep political sacrifices to push forward his agenda. It is much more likely that once they are elected, and their positions assured for another cycle, they will tell Trump to go get stuffed.

So should we still be worried? Of course. I think a Trump presidency would be a total disaster. The Presidency still has many powers, especially in the realm of foreign affairs and domestic administration. Its those promises that should worry you. He could break things that are currently working. But when he promises to do new things, introduce new laws and agencies it is important to see that for what it really is. His opinion of what others should do under his leadership. Because he really cannot order it done himself.