Tomorrow (okay, today! I had hoped to publish this before midnight but missed by 12 minutes) is what has been arguably described in most circles as the most important
presidential election in our lifetime. For
the Hillary supporters, it’s a clear choice between the superior competence of
a highly intelligent candidate with 30 years of public service experience
versus the total incompetence, total lack of government experience, downright
awful ignorance, dangerous policy positions, and bigotry of her opponent. To the Trump supporters, it is a very clear
choice between a totally maverick outsider whom they totally trust to fix
everything that’s wrong with the country or continuing with the corruption,
lies, and special interests that they so strongly believe characterize the
Clinton candidacy. Despite this
historically wide divide and the fact that the two candidates could not be
further apart, there are still (unbelievably in my opinion) the undecided
voters, and there are enough of them that they hold the potential for swinging
the election either way.
How
anyone can be undecided in this election is beyond me. They are either completely uninformed about
Trump, or uninformed about Hillary, or more likely the case, both. The same with all those Sanders Democrats
disaffected with Hillary who have declared their intention to vote either Trump
or Libertarian. The Green Party I could
understand, but Libertarian? What!
Again, how could anyone possibly have supported Bernie and now support
Trump or Johnson? Do they have any
understanding of what Bernie stands for?
It’s certainly nowhere near what Trump and Johnson stand for.
The
good news is that by this time tomorrow this horrible campaign year will be
over. But before we put it to bed for
good, I would like to take one last stab at directing everyone’s attention to a
couple of outstanding information sources that might bring a fresh perspective
about both candidates. One is an
outstanding documentary that was on PBS a few weeks ago, the other an article
from a recent issue of Rolling Stone which I thought summed up the 35 year
history of our recent divisiveness quite nicely. But before I do that, I’d like to submit a
couple of thoughts of my own.
*************************************************
Since
the beginning, I’ve always joked that 50 years from now the book will be
published explaining how Trump ran for president in 2016 with the express and
deliberate purpose of destroying the Republican party, for as wild as that
theory might seem, what else can better explain his outrageousness? Indeed, as Tim opined to me last week, the
guy is not an idiot and he might have actually had a chance if not for his many
absurd statements which may be intentional (which is what his supporters
believe) or unwitting (which is what the rest of the world believes.) Given that, I’ve always believed his candidacy
to be an extreme long shot for the math simply has been against him since day
one. At the height of his popularity he
enjoyed at most 40 percent support in the Republican base. There have been times that it has been as
high as 60 but the other 20 has been more an anti-Hillary stance than a
pro-Trump. 40 Percent! That’s 20 percent of the voters. That was obviously enough to win primaries
and with the way the Republican rules work in the primary process, enough to
secure a nomination. It’s not enough to
win an election, not even close. He’s
never had enough support to win a general election. Not even close.
Many
Trump supporters believe strongly this election will be a landslide for him. Somehow I’m on Ben Carson’s email list and I
keep getting these daily reports which reflect either a passionate cheerleading
squad or a complete denial of reality.
Why do I know that Trump will lose?
Even in the traditional Republican strongholds he is unable to achieve a
lead. Statistically the best he’s been
able to do even in such conservative mavens as North Carolina and Georgia is a
dead heat. As the Republican nominee, his
polls should be at least 90 percent among likely Republican voters in the
strong red states to even have a chance.
He’s not even close. Never has a
nominee won the White House without having huge numbers at least with their own
party. He’s not even close.
********************************************************
Let’s
also take another look at these so-called “unfavorable” numbers as so much hay
has been made about the statistical fact that we have two of the most unpopular
candidates in history vying for the White House this time around. But do we really? Clearly most Democrats are revulsed by the
notion of a Donald Trump presidency. But
in this particular case, which is historically unprecedented, fully about
one-third of Republicans also find him highly distasteful and support him only
because they find Hillary more distasteful.
Of course, you’d expect Republicans to dislike the Democrat opponent.
What
about Hillary? Is she really the most
unpopular Democrat in recent memory – or is there another side to these
polls? I think a reasonable argument
could be made that fully a third of Clinton’s unfavorable rating is likely
composed of progressive democrats who not so much dislike Hillary as liked
Bernie’s idealistic message better and penalize her only because she’s not as
far to the left as they’d like. But does
that translate into voting for a third party (or a write-in for Bernie) when
they know that any votes siphoned away from Hillary will likely become a vote
for Trump? Sure, many are threatening to
support Jill Stein (or Bernie) as there is still a lot of anger regarding the
perception that Bernie was squeezed out.
But as Washington Week in Review on PBS reminded us several weeks ago,
the same thing happened in 2008 when Hillary’s supporters had the same
perception that she had been unfairly squeezed out. Many threatened not to vote for Obama but, in
the end, with the prospect of a McCain presidency, over 90 percent of them did
indeed vote for Obama. Will the
progressives vote Green Party or vote Hillary?
In the opinions of the PBS commentators, ’08 will be repeated and most
will in the end support Hillary.
The
other two-thirds of her unfavorable ratings are certainly coming from the
Republicans who would not be supporting her anyway. But if you take away the one-third of
progressives who are part of Hillary’s unfavorable rating, then she in fact has
one of the lowest unfavorable ratings in history if so much of that number is
coming from people who just don’t think she’s liberal enough. Certainly the Republicans would never accuse
her of that.
****************************************************
Finally,
I’d like to share a fascinating one-hour lecture I was treated to at the
Financial Planning Association of Michigan’s big symposium last month in which
a leading Wall Street economist using a couple dozen leading economic
indicators demonstrated how the election was stacking up strictly from the
point of view of economic statistics.
Keep in mind this was a largely Republican crowd and the speaker was an
equal opportunity offender beginning her analysis of each candidate with an
equally unflattering photograph. Also
keep in mind that these many indicators that she articulated for us have
successfully predicted every election since 1929. The result surprised everyone. In 95 percent of the cases, the indicators
overwhelming supported a Hillary victory.
I’d love to share the PowerPoint presentation but it is not currently
available. I’m going to try to get a
copy. It’ll be particularly interesting
after tomorrow if things go the other way.
The
Rolling Stone article does an excellent job of explaining why and how this
atmosphere of anger and discontent has overtaken the political scene in recent
years. However, if there is as all the
polls claim an enormous amount of voter disgust out there with the whole system
and with both candidates, I have not seen it in my world. I know many passionate Republicans and
Democrats but very few object to both candidates. The Trump supporters I know are quite
enthusiastic about the man with the Hillary supporters being equally ardent
about their candidate. Still don’t where
the “undecideds” are coming from. I can
only hope that they are all Bernie supporters who, in the end, will understand
the wisdom of choosing practicality over idealism.
And, for a little bonus, though it's hardly scientific, I almost titled this article "A Waste of $4.50" since that how much I spent on newspapers Sunday and Monday looking for endorsements. I have noticed this in the last several elections. Many newspapers by and large are no longer taking positions on candidates and issues and then sticking their necks out with an endorsement. The Oakland Press is not. A thorough google search turned up nothing as well. The Free Press and the News did, the News doing the more thorough job. I was quite surprised.
So here's the bonus. I found a story that only three newspapers in the entire U.S. have endorsed Trump -- and one of those is The National Enquirer! Solid conservative papers in all 50 states have for the first time in history refused to support the nominee of their party. The Detroit News has endorsed Gary Johnson and this may be what other conservative papers are doing as well, though I have not researched that. I doubt many Hillary supporters are going for Johnson and that is not good news for Trump. Hillary's not going to be hurt but every Libertarian vote is one that would have gone to Trump. Unprecedented!
So …. For
those who are interested:
Here is
the link to the PBS special – “The Choice 2016” Frontline.
For the
article “The Age of Fear: We are living in the safest time in human
history. So why are we all so afraid?” see the 10/20/16 issue of Rolling Stone. (I have scanned the article but there does not seem to be a way of attaching a pdf to this blog. You need to subscribe to Rolling Stone to view the issue online.)
******************************************************
Trump’s
supporters fervently believe that he is only saying what everyone else is
thinking and, being thus convinced that he represents the majority point of
view, that a landslide victory will be theirs.
It does thus surprise me how much pessimism I hear from confirmed
Democrats who believe the race will be very close (even Hillary frequently says
so) and that there’s more than a fair chance that Trump might win. “The Age of Fear” might explain where this
pessimism is coming from even if all the logic and math is against it.
In the
history of presidential politics, anything over 55% is considered a
landslide. Except for George Washington
(who was elected unanimously in the Electoral College before the popular vote
was instituted) there have been very few presidents who have achieved this 55
percent. There has been but a small
handful who have exceeded 55 percent, among whom were Lincoln, Grant, Teddy
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan (mostly 2nd terms) and again
nothing exceeding 58 percent, which is phenomenal.
The
stakes involved in this election are so high that the time has come for another
landslide. When I was in NYC last week,
I had the pleasure of sharing a bus ride with a very nice lady from Holland who
did not understand what the American people were doing. I assured her that, “No, not all of us
support Trump. In fact, I think it’s
very important that the American voters send a very loud and clear message to
the world on November 8th that we do not elect clowns.” She was very relieved to hear me say this;
apparently even in her travels in NYC she was having a hard time finding
Americans who were not supporting Trump.
It seemed she believed Trump’s own words when he boasted, “I could shoot
someone on 5th Avenue and not lose a single vote.” I almost wish he would take a shot at
someone. With all his outrageous rhetoric
bordering on inciting to violence, if this was any other time or any other
election, he would be in jail. He is now
saying there will be riots if he loses. He’s gotten away with murder so
far. But after November 8th,
if he so much as hints that his supporters should resort to violence in protest,
he will be in jail. If he does not
straighten up, that’s exactly what he deserves.
And he has the nerve to suggest that Hillary should be locked up. I can’t wait until this is over.
*********************************************************
But as
I told this lady from Holland, as a nation we need to send a loud and clear
message to the world that we do not support craziness. Unlike many of the Democrats I know who are
scared to death of losing, I have complete confidence that the American people
will choose saneness on the 8th.
But I dearly do not want this election to be close. I want a landslide. I remember so well the 1980 election when all
the polls showed the Carter/Reagan contest at 50/50 but election night brought
Reagan a landslide. The polls again
predicted a very tight race in 2012, but Obama ran away with 54 percent.
But the
Republicans are so much better organized than the Democrats; they are so much
more skilled at getting out the vote.
Democrats generally only lose because they don’t show up. This is the doomsday scenario for Hillary and
this is why the pessimism has given me such great pause. Is it possible that Hillary will lose simply
because too many Democrats are buying into all the disillusionment and are not
going to vote? This has always been her
election to lose and that is certainly one surefire way that she can lose. Please everyone, vote! There is no such thing as an ideal candidate
and we should not be discouraged just because our choices are imperfect. It is time to be practical, not ideal.
Again, we need to send a loud and
clear message to the rest of the world. Despite
the polls putting her at best at 48 percent, I want Hillary to reach the 55
percent mark. And I’m holding out hope
for the big 6-0! Going for 60 percent,
the largest landslide in history! In
less than another day, we’ll know.
No comments:
Post a Comment