Archive for the ‘Bias’ Category

Sometimes It Takes More Than Looks

Thursday, March 2nd, 2017

harding2

Warren G. Harding is widely regarded as the worst President ever to occupy the office.

Many say he won the election because he “looked like a President”.   This was the tail end of an era where those who LOOKED like gentlemen were assumed to possess all of qualities and capabilities associated with gentlemen.  While Harding was popular during his term, the scandals which emerged after he left office relegated him to his status as a failed president.

We are now in an era of billionaires.  Those who appear to possess great wealth are assumed to possess special qualities and talents that set them apart.  Trump’s election is an example of the trust that some voters have in a wealthy person.  They elected a man whose only qualification to occupy the most powerful political office in the country is that he appears to be wealthy.

I think it is fair to say that in the first month and half, the Trump administration is struggling to find its way.  Even though it is early, there are seeds of scandal that are already blooming.

Russia

The White House has been working furiously to discredit a story that the NYT broke regarding contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In a now famous interview with Chuck Todd of Meet the Press, Reince Priebus disputed the story alternately calling it “grossly overstated”, “inaccurate”, “totally wrong”, “total baloney”, and “garbage”.  He claimed that people in both the intelligence community and the congress confirmed this description.  The next leak was that Priebus asked the FBI to go on the record with what they had told him.  The FBI refused because the request would politicize the FBI even more than it is now.  Then Priebus assembled a group of intelligence community members and Republican members of Congress to rebut the story, but only anonymously.  This is particular ironic since Priebus (and later Trump) used anonymity of the NYT sources to question the accuracy of the whole article.

It is this sort of fake news stuff that is enormously important that, when you get a front page story of The New York Times without a single source on the record saying that your campaign had constant contacts– they didn’t say one contact. They didn’t say two contacts. It doesn’t matter. We have not been informed of even that. But to say, “Constant contact?”

In this process, however, the two points that the White House objected to in the story became clear.

  1. The story said “repeated contacts”. The White House has built a straw man by claiming that the story said “constant contacts”.
  2. The story said the contacts were with senior Russian Intelligence officials. We now know that the White House is trying to claim that the Russian conversations that DID occur were not with senior Russian Intelligence officials.

“NBC News was told by law enforcement and intelligence sources that the NYT story WAS wrong — in its use of the term ‘Russian intelligence officials.’ Our sources say there were contacts with Russians, but that the US hasn’t confirmed they work for spy agencies. We were also told CNN’s description of Trump aides being in ‘constant touch’ with Russians was overstated. However, our sources did tell us that intelligence intercepts picked up contacts among Trump aides and Russians during the campaign.”

We find out today that new AG Jeff Sessions was one of the people who DID have at least two conversations with a Russian official during the campaign and neglected to share that information during his confirmation hearing.

Testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was asked in January by Al Franken what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign. “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

There’s more: Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) sent Sessions an additional written question: “Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” The AG’s one-word answer could not have been more categorical: “No.”

Sessions response was that his conversations with the Russian ambassador did not involve the campaign, so he felt he answered the questions accurately.  He has also agreed to recuse himself from future congressional investigations.

Here’s the scope of this potential scandal.

There WERE conversations between the Trump campaign and Russians during the election.  Those conversations included Jeff Sessions, though he claims that their conversations didn’t touch on the campaign.  Sessions clearly had an opportunity to disclose his conversations during his confirmation hearings and chose not to.

The White House is disputing that these conversations (Sessions and others) were “constant”, that they were with Russians who worked for Russia’s various intelligence agencies, and that they were about the 2016 election.  Of course this begs the question of why the FBI or other intelligence agencies were listening to the phone conversations of “regular” Russians, but the larger issue is the nature of the White House’s attempt to bury this story.

The risk to the Trump administration is that their efforts to bury the story will ultimately be more damaging than the story itself.  Flynn was the first victim.  Fired for lying supposedly lying to the President. The second victim could be Sessions.  He could be on the hook for perjury.  The cover-up is always more dangerous than the story itself, but in this case the story about a foreign power intervening in a US election is unprecedented.

Yemen

The father of the Navy Seal that died in last month’s operation refused to meet with the President.  He is blaming his son’s death on a poorly planned and poorly executed operation.  He has demanded an investigation.

“Why at this time did there have to be this stupid mission when it wasn’t even barely a week into his administration? Why?” said Mr. Owens, who told The Herald that he had not voted for Mr. Trump. “For two years prior, there were no boots on the ground in Yemen — everything was missiles and drones — because there was not a target worth one American life. Now all of a sudden we had to make this grand display“  “Don’t hide behind my son’s death to prevent an investigation.”

“The government owes my son an investigation,” the father, William Owens, told The Miami Herald.

One of Trump’s campaign positions was that Clinton failed in her responsibilities to protect the lives of Americans in the Benghazi attack.  Trump criticized the Clinton investigations.  He claimed she was guilty even though the investigations produced no evidence to support that claim.  The Trump campaign produced an ad quoting some of the family members of those who were killed in the attack.  Several of them spoke at the Republican National Convention.  One was in the audience at the third debate.

Ryan Owens’ wife was at Trump’s first speech to Congress.  Trump recognized her for her sacrifice.  But he has also failed to take any responsibility for the failed mission.  He has instead blamed both the military and the Obama administration.

Here’s the scope of this potential scandal.

Will there be as thorough an investigation into this failed raid as Trump called for in Benghazi?

Will Ryan Owens’ father be as celebrated in his grief  as Ryan Owens’ widow?

Will the White House drop their claim that the raid yielded valuable intelligence – a claim that has since been disputed by intelligence officials?

The risk to the Trump administration will be similar to Russia.  If they oppose or interfere with an independent investigation, they will be putting the administration in jeopardy.  If the investigations reveal that decisions on either the raid or the speech were mainly political, they will lose the trust of voters.

Summary 

As these and other scandals continue to pop up and unfold, the façade of media bias as the root cause for Trump’s troubles will fall away.  What will be left are the tawdry facts that the Trump campaign DID have conversations with the Russians about the election. And the Trump administration DID approve a poorly planned, poorly executed mission that discovered no new information because there was political benefit to what appeared at the time to be an easy win.

The legacy of this administration will be similar to the business legacy of the President.  The claims of expertise and unique skill will all fail to produce any substance.  The bodies will stack up.  The collateral damage will mount.  The domestic and foreign mistakes will increase dissension and weaken our country.  At some point, enough people will realize that the only thing that Trump brought to this office was wealthy arrogance.  Once they realize that being President requires larger skill set, they will kick him out of office.  When they finally tire of his attempts to blame his failures on others, they will finally blame him for misleading them.  The fact, however, is that it was voters who misled themselves.  They assumed that wealth somehow qualified a person to be President.  Like Harding, voters will realize that wealth, just like looks, has little or nothing to do with competence or trustworthiness.

Get With The Program

Monday, February 6th, 2017

Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson and the other framers of the constitution made sure that our democracy included a free press.  They understood that it was a vital check on the power that they were investing in government

What happens to our democracy when a significant number of voters reject even the concept of an unbiased media?

The American Journal of Political Science recently released a study to answer the question of how this could happen.

Political affiliation is now a stronger predictor of behavior than even race.  People are much more accepting of someone of a different race as a potential spouse than they are of someone who has differing political views.

Many who are sharing fake news understand that it may not be accurate, but they share it none the less because it supports their point of view.  More importantly it also demonstrates to their peers that they are trusted members of that social group.

Conservatives may also be more fearful.

According to a study slated to be published in the journal Psychological Science, it might be true that conservatives are more likely to fall for false, threatening-seeming information, but it’s not because they’re dumb. It’s because they’re hyper-attuned to hazards in their world. If they spot a sign of danger, they figure trusting it is better than ignoring it.

That’s all fine and good for Facebook users.  But what happens when the President of the United States starts saying things are aren’t supported by facts?

You’ve got frivolous things like the size of the inauguration crowd (smaller than Obama physically and virtually), blaming his loss of the popular vote on illegal voting (voter rolls have problems, but no evidence of illegal voting, supported by recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan), the biggest Republican victory since Reagan (Bush I was bigger), and his standing ovation at the CIA speech (CIA officers stand until requested to sit.  He never asked them to sit.)

But then you have things that affect people’s lives.

An executive order that counters the dramatic expansion of the federal workforce when the federal workforce is the same today as it was 8 years ago.

A ban on Muslims from 7 countries including Syria, when no Muslim immigrants from those countries has ever committed an act of terrorism in this country.

Trump suggested that there were only 100 or so people affected.  His lawyers later testified in court that over 100,000 were effected.  How could he have been so far off?

Trump provided preference to Christians because he said that they were having a more difficult time previously getting into the country.  That’s not true either.  We admitted Christians and Muslims at roughly the same rate. The smaller number of Syrian Christians is due to the fact that they are only 5% of the Syrian population.

His administration cited a fictitious massacre in Bowling Green, KY as evidence that we should fear Muslim immigrants.  The data suggests that US citizens are MUCH more likely going to be the perpetrators of mass killings than immigrants.  This ban will likely only alienate the domestic Muslim population further, at the precise time that we need their help.

At home as well, Mr. Benjamin said, the president’s order is likely to prove counterproductive. The jihadist threat in the United States has turned out to be largely homegrown, he said, and the order will encourage precisely the resentments and anxieties on the part of Muslims that fuel, in rare cases, support for the ideology of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda.

In our country, journalists have the responsibility to hold elected officials accountable.  They do that by informing voters and speaking truth to power.  There is no one else.  Yet Trump is systematically delegitimizing the trustworthiness of the press.  Why is that?

Some claim that this is the influence of Bannon.  His world view is that the old order is corrupt and must be overthrown.  He believes that we are literally at war with an expansionist Islamic philosophy and the solution is to exert our own sovereignty.  Rather than make the world safer through alliances, he would prefer that the US protect itself through power and nationalism.  The press, in his opinion, is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.  That’s because he views himself as a radical and he feels his own cause justifies ANY ACTION.

This is an old and proven strategy.  Create fear of “the other”.  Convince people that the only way to be safe it to eliminate “the other” from our society.  The simple math is that you are either with us or you are against us.  If you are against us, you become part of “the other” should be treated in the same way that we are treating “them”.  You hear some of that language coming from the administration today in reactions to dissent.

In a democracy, we have to hold our elected officials accountable to telling the truth.  It is THEIR responsibility to separate belief from fact.  If we can’t trust that our elected officials are making their decisions based on the best facts available to them, our institutions begin to unravel because they can no longer be trusted to deal fairly with all people.  And that’s the key here. Bannon isn’t interested in dealing fairly with all people.  He is interested in a revolution where HIS OWN VISION of the future triumphs, not the vision of the founders, or even the vision of the majority.

The danger to democracy when people stop believing the press is that they will ultimately stop believing in the rest of the institutions that are the foundation for our society.  That’s the moment that demagogues can gain followers by claiming that they are the only ones that are willing to tell the truth.  The reality is that they are the ones manipulating the tribalism they create and the fear they instill to undermine democracy and usurp power.  It is a proven formula.  Don’t let it happen here.

 

Bias and Free Press

Tuesday, January 10th, 2017

freedom-of-the-press-big

One of the freedoms cherished by the founding fathers was a free press.

They felt it was an essential part of a robust democracy.

They also were not so naïve as to ignore the challenges that come with unfettered publishing.

The basic challenge is balancing the public’s right to know with the power that a biased press has to influence the public to advance its own political agenda.

There have been times when there were no restrictions on the press at all.  The press were propaganda arms of the political parties during Lincoln’s time.  At the turn of the last century sensational yellow journalism ruled.  Pulitzer and Hurst used their newspapers to start the Spanish American War.  They also advocated the assassination of McKinley which then occurred.  Pulitzer was so troubled by his “yellow sins”, that he dedicated himself to creating a new code of ethics for newspapers.  That code survives to this day, though only a handful of newspapers still support it.

The government had some better grounds to control the broadcast media because they were using public bandwidth.  The last vestige of government regulations controlling broadcast news coverage (The Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Requirements) were eliminated during the Reagan administration.  Every attempt to restore at least those provisions, has been opposed by both conservatives and liberals.  Obama, for example, preferred net neutrality, caps on media ownership, and investments in public broadcasting as ways to encourage a wide range of media options for voters.

Public opinion STRONGLY supports the equal time requirements.  Similar majorities rejected the concept that news sites should be required to present opposing points of view (Fairness Doctrine).

Combine this with the “narrow casting” business model available to online and broadcast media, and you have the “something for everyone” landscape that we enjoy today.

The extreme of this phenomena is fake news.  The purpose of fake news is to sell advertising.  That is the same business model legit news organizations use.  The difference is that fake news outlets don’t actually report on anything.  Their stories are fiction intended to manipulate rather than inform their target audience.  The bulk of the fake news operations focus on conservative conspiracy theories because they’ve found that those get the most clicks.

The following graph does as good a job as any in attempting to explain the current landscape.

trusted-sources

Whether or not you agree with how individual news sources appear on this spectrum isn’t really the issue.  The issue is that this spectrum exists and the further you get from the middle vertically and horizontally, the less reliable the information becomes.

Bias

Bias does not mean that someone disagrees with you.

Bias means that a news organization’s political opinion influences either their news choices and/or the content of their stories.

As you can see from the above graph, there are very few news sources that meet the criteria of being free from partisan bias – NPR, BBC, WashPost, NYT, NBC News, ABC News, AP, and Reuters.  It does not include Fox or MSNBC.  It does not include Slate, The Atlantic, The WSJ, or The Hill.

Conservatives have spent decades disputing the claim that Fox is biased and the NYT is not.  There is no winning this debate.

But here’s the core of the discussion.

Democracy needs reliable sources of facts that we can all trust in order to move forward.

Fox fails this test because they blur the boundaries between opinion (they call it entertainment) and news.  Hannity is just one example.  He has a news show, but also was an official adviser to the Trump campaign.  His defense is that he claims to be an entertainer and not a journalist.  This is the same defense that John Steward used on the Daily Show.  The Daily Show makes no claims to be fair or balanced.  Fox does.

The WSJ also recently failed this test.  That’s because their editor has said that the paper will no longer fact check Trump.  Instead the paper will simply present readers information and let the readers decide whether or not Trump is telling the truth.

I honestly think it is pretty easy to sort all of this out.

Let’s look at what each news source says are their code of ethics.

Here’s what the NYT says:

The core purpose of The New York Times is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news and information. Producing content of the highest quality and integrity is the basis for our reputation and the means by which we fulfill the public trust and our customers’ expectations.

Here’s what Fox News says:

The Fox Nation was created for people who believe in the United States of America and its ideals, as expressed in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Emancipation Proclamation. It is a community that believes in the American Dream: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One that believes being an American is an honor, as well as a great responsibility – and a wonderful adventure.

This is a place for people who believe we live in a great country, a welcoming refuge for legal immigrants who want to contribute their talents and abilities to make our way of life even greater. We believe we should enjoy the company and support of each other, delighting in the creativity, ingenuity, and work ethic of one and all, while observing the rules of civility and mutual respect and, most importantly, strengthening our diverse society by striving for unity.

The Fox Nation is committed to the core principles of tolerance, open debate, civil discourse, and fair and balanced coverage of the news. It is for those opposed to intolerance, excessive government control of our lives, and attempts to monopolize opinion or suppress freedom of thought, expression, and worship.

We invite all Americans who share these values to join us here at Fox Nation.

I tried to find an ethics or mission statement for the WSJ, but they appear not to have one.

In other words, NYT is committed to distribute high quality news and information.  Fox News is committed to creating an experience for a particular group of people who all share a common point of view.  The WSJ is going to do whatever it needs to do to make money.  All have been true to their stated goals.

Summary

It is possible to find unbiased organizations who strive to report the news in a straight forward manner and inform the public on what is true and what is false.

It is also possible to find biased organizations who will report the news, and in some case make up news, to suit their audience.  They have a particular point of view that they promote.  They filter and in some cases alter or invent what they call news in order to re-inforce that particular point of view.  Those who choose to rely on these sources of information and fundamentally misinformed.

Next up:  How does democracy function in an environment where at least some portion of the electorate are either uninformed or misinformed?

What Happened?

Tuesday, December 20th, 2016

what-just-happened-g

 

We elected Trump president.

He is by all objective accounts the least qualified person ever elected to this office.  Yes he is a businessman and by all appearances a very wealthy person.  We have elected business people to this office in the past, but never one with absolutely no government experience.  We have also elected wealthy people to this office in the past, but never one who claims to be as wealthy as this guy.  As a result, we have no idea how he will perform because we have no previous history to use as comparison.  The closest we can come is Herbert Hoover, and that didn’t work out so well.

In as a dispassionate way as possible, I’d like to figure out why and then perhaps lay out just a few of the challenges that he and we will face.

Change

Republicans began this race with a significant advantage.  US voters simply don’t like to give any particular party more than 8 years in the White House.

The Clinton campaign understood this challenge.  As it became clear that Trump would be the Republican nominee, they crafted a strategy to highlight the risks of electing someone with so little government experience.  They framed this election as a choice between change and risk.

Here’s an example of how Clinton discussed this choice.

Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas – just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies.

He is not just unprepared – he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.

As proof of how effective her message was, Clinton won these points.

  • Just 38 percent of voters said that Trump was “qualified” to be president (52 percent said the same of Clinton).
  • Just 35 percent said Trump had the “temperament to serve effectively as president” (55 percent said Clinton had the right temperament to be president).
  • One in three voters said Trump was honest and trustworthy (36 percent said the same of Clinton).

But she still lost the popular vote in the key states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.  That’s because the desire for change was stronger than the perceived risks associated with that change.  Four in 10 voters said the most important character trait in deciding their vote was a candidate who “can bring needed change” to Washington. Of that group, Trump won 83 percent to Clinton’s 14 percent.  In effect, all that Trump had to do is demonstrate that he was NOT part of the establishment in order to win this election.  For the change voters, particularly in the key battleground states that I listed, all of his objective weaknesses were strengths.

Demographics

I had thought that the Obama victories spelled the end of white angry male politics.

I was wrong.

Clinton still did well with emerging demographics.  The white male voter segment is getting smaller in every election including this one.  That vote increased 2% from 2012-2016.  In comparison the black vote increased 6%.  The Asian vote increased 16% and the Hispanic vote increased 17%.  The problem for Clinton was that most of those votes were in states like California rather than the battleground states where Trump was able to eke out narrow victories.

Clinton won 55% of the young vote, but they weren’t as large a percentage of the total vote in 2016 as they were in 2008 or 2012.  Clinton also improved as a percentage of 65+ voters over those who voted for Obama in 2012, though Trump won that demographic by roughly 10%.

Issues

The country continues to become more liberal as demographics change.

The vote on immigration this election was almost evenly split.  That is a dramatic improvement over the negative view of immigration a decade ago.  74% of Americans now believe that there should be a path to citizenship for undocumented workers.  61% oppose building a wall.

Large majorities of all voters support more aggressive actions on gun control including expanded background checks, keeps guns out of the hands of those with mental health issues, barring those on no-fly lists from purchasing guns, tracking gun purchases in a national database, banning the sale of high capacity ammunition clips, and even restricting the sale of assault-type weapons.

65% of voters are concerned about climate change and believe it is a real issue.

60% support same sex marriage and LGBT rights.  A majority also oppose “Freedom of Religion” laws.

Where We Go From Here

There are a number of issues that could easily derail a Trump presidency.  The basic challenges remain that he is deeply inexperienced AND that he has chosen to surround himself with others who can only be generously classified as outsiders.

He was certainly elected to “shake up” Washington.  But Washington isn’t going to welcome change.  The same is true with the rest of the world.

So here’s my list of the challenges that Trump is going to have to navigate to survive his first term and get re-elected in 2020.

China, Russia, Iran, Israel, and ISIS

The One China policy has allowed Taiwan and China to peacefully coexist for decades.  Trump upset that policy with one phone call.  China’s response was to grab some of our stuff.  Escalation is not a good formula here.  Trump is already talking about killing the TPP.  That agreement was crafted to provide the other Pacific Rim countries an alternative to accepting China’s trading rules.  If China controls the rules of trade in the Pacific, they will also have tremendous economic leverage over those countries.  That will make it more difficult for the US to oppose Chinese aggression in the region.  What will Trump do if China threatens Taiwan?

It would be great to have better relations with Russia.  But Russia has been aggressively expanding its sphere of influence in border countries by intervening in their elections and annexing territory.  What is Trump going to be willing to give (or take away from) Russia that will cause them to change their behavior?  Trump is in dangerous territory if it turns out that there were contacts between his campaign and Russian hacking during the election.  Trump is also in dangerous territory if ongoing Russian hacking expose the inner workings of the Trump administration in the same ways that it exposed the inner workings of the Clinton campaign.  What leverage does this give Russia?  Russian reactions to the assassination in Turkey could lead to a military escalation early in Trump’s administration.  Turkey is our NATO ally.  How will the Trump administration respond?  Trump also has real estate holdings in Turkey.  How will Trump respond to actions that threaten some of his properties?

Trump has said that he will move the US embassy to Jerusalem.  That move would signal the end of any two-state solution.  It will also give Israel free reign to continue their economic and military persecution of Palestinians.  How will the Trump administration respond to an Israeli crack down on a Palestinian uprising that resulted in a large number of Palestinians being killed?  How will a Trump administration respond to an increase in military actions by Israel’s neighbors in reaction to a brutal military crackdown of a Palestinian uprising?

That leads naturally to Iran.  Israel has every right to fear Iran, and Iran has every right to fear both Israel and the US.  Iraq used to be the balance to Iran, but our invasion of Iraq upset that balance and caused Iran to start their nuclear weapons program.  They’ve stopped that development because of their interest in joining the global economy.  But if Trump figures he can get a better deal and is also seen as a close ally of Israel, this whole deal could come apart.  What will Trump do to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?  What will Russia, Iran’s close ally, do if the US or Israel take some aggressive action against Iran because of their resumed nuclear program?

ISIS will continue to attack around the world.  He has been curiously silent, for example, after the Berlin attack.  After Trump’s inauguration, I predict that his named properties will become targets.  This isn’t planned, but random.  How is Trump going to respond?  The reality is that there is little he can do.  He can attempt to bomb them, but if anything that will only increase the domestic terrorism that is now the bulk of ISIS action.  He will fail to be effective and ultimately voters will hold him responsible.

Conflict of Interest, Deal Making, Obamacare, Infrastructure, Tax Reform, and Republicans

Trump has a serious conflict of interest problem.  There are no indications that he is going to take steps to effectively insulate his business and his family from the potential benefits that would accrue to those businesses from his office.  Even worse, he also needs to insulate himself from the APPEARANCE of conflict regarding foreign contributions.  Just one example is the fact that he owns hotels.  Every time someone employed by a foreign government stays in one of his hotels, he is in potential violation of the constitution.  Congress and the American people will let him slide for a while, but he is taking grave risks against some future event that will paint him as corrupt.  I’m not sure how many of those events he is going to be able to survive, since he was elected to clean up the corruption.

Deal making is also going to be very difficult for him because that’s not how government business is done.  Deals are done politically, not financially.  It is ok to trade influence.  It is not ok to trade money.  There are a large body of regulations which prohibit favoritism in government contracting.  Trump could easily run afoul of these laws in his attempts to personally negotiate the country’s business.  The difference here is that, rather than a political backlash, he will get sued by whatever corporations felt that they were disadvantaged by one of Trump’s deals.  How many of those suits will have to occur before Congress decides that they have had enough?

It is going to be very difficult to replace Obamacare.  Collin Powell famously said of Iraq, “if you break it, you own it.”  The same is true of Obamacare.  If Republicans repeal it without a plan to replace it, even if that repeal is delayed until after the 2018 elections, the exchange structure could easily collapse.  If that happens, millions of people will either lose their insurance, or see their premiums rise dramatically.  This could easily turn into a daily drip-drip-drip of bad news, much like the financial collapse of 2008.  That bad news and the inability of the Trump administration to do anything about it, will result in a big 2018 backlash and the beginning of the end for Trump.  He will say that he did what the voters elected him to do, but voters are going to blame him because he promised to make it better.

Trump hired a budget hawk for his OMB director.  This budget hawk is going to have to figure out how to fund the massive infrastructure bill that is the foundation for Trump’s jobs program.  It is going to be very interesting to see how this plays out.  The infrastructure bank idea is an invitation to crony capitalism and will only work in big urban areas where investors have an opportunity to monetize their projects.  It isn’t going to help those vast under served rural areas where many Trump voters live.  The cuts to other federal spending that would be required to pay for this, if it isn’t financed through debt, will result in MORE job loss and hardship for those rural voters rather than less.  Their life will get harder, unemployment will go up, and they will vote for a different change in 2018 and 2020.

Tax Reform will be another give away to the rich.  This may turn out to be the least controversial of the programs that Trump takes on.  But it is also fraught with danger for Trump.  If Trump voters weren’t already sensitive to a cabinet filled with billionaires all getting big tax cuts, they will be.  If Trump hasn’t divested himself from his businesses, you can bet that the benefits that his family gets from Tax reform will be front page news and Trump’s hypocrisies will dominate social media.

Republicans are the most interesting piece of this puzzle.  Just as they rallied around Trump as it became obvious that he was going to win, they will abandon him if he appears to falter.  They will determine if they can mold him in their image.  When that fails, they will see if they can maneuver him politically to carry out their agenda.  When that fails, they will see if they can trip him up and get him out of the way, so that they can replace his agenda with theirs.

Summary

I will be surprised to see Trump complete his term.  I think that foreign intrigue will reveal his fundamental weaknesses and terrify voters.  Hopefully, we will avoid a conflict.  If not, it will go badly.  If he avoids foreign conflict, he will fumble Obamacare and the repercussions will cost him at least his senate majority in 2018.  The house will eventually impeach him for conflicts of interest and the post 2018 senate will confirm that impeachment making him the third president to go through an impeachment trial, and only the second one to lose.

I would prefer that this not be the script for the next four years, but Trump is sowing the seeds of his own destruction as we speak.  He is not taking the steps to insulate himself from potential conflicts of interest.  He is secretive and combative rather than transparent.  He trusts in his own ability to communicate with the public directly, but the public will soon be able to see for themselves whether the results match his promises.  He is picking fights with his intelligence agencies which makes him even more vulnerable to bad information.  His cabinet of outsiders will likely agree with him rather than oppose him.

We will face a challenge as a country too.  That’s because Trump will try to blame his failures on others.  We have to be vigilant to prevent Trump and his followers from using domestic turmoil to distract us from his administration’s failures.  He should have every opportunity to prove me wrong, but if he fails, he alone should be held responsible for the consequences of his failures.

 

Libertarians Big Fail

Friday, November 4th, 2016

If there were ever an election year when the Libertarian Party could make significant gains, this is the year.

The Bernie Sanders campaign caught fire and inspired a new generation of young people and rallied a cohort of progressives frustrated with eight years of cautious Obama politics.

Many of Bernie’s most ardent supporters were looking for a new champion when Bernie failed to win the nomination.

Donald Trump’s xenophobic populism abandoned traditional Republicans and their concerns about fiscal conservatism and government overreach.

The contest between Clinton and Trump quickly became a personality referendum. Issues took a back seat to an endless cycle of school-yard taunts, shocking revelations of personal weakness, and a deeply disturbing lord of the flies “kill the pig” frenzy.

Libertarianism had the perfect opportunity to assert its simple philosophy that people are perfectly able to make their own decisions and better decisions will be made if people are allowed to experience the consequences of their actions.

This also applies to governments. The world would be a better place, libertarians contend, if governments were less concerned with individual rights and more concerned with national defense.

So why is the Libertarian Party polling at less than 5% of the total vote?

My sense is that when push came to shove, the libertarian faithful including big money sources like David Koch, failed the Trump test.

Trump successfully turned this election into a reality show. Clinton became the villain. Trump became his own hero. His whole campaign is an effort to fan the flames of tribalism by drawing clear lines between us and them. Facts took a beating as every event was re-interpreted within the context of how “they” were biased, crooked, and untrustworthy and “we” were the only choice to save the nation from “them”.

The media, every established political party, the Clinton campaign, and the public have been challenged to respond.

The Libertarians had the opportunity to demonstrate that their philosophy was a better way.

Instead, their leaders and their followers could not resist the temptation to participate in this personality contest in hopes of attracting those who claimed that they disliked BOTH Trump and Clinton.

The issues with Clinton and the FBI are a perfect example. Early on both Johnson and Weld agreed with the FBI’s recommendation not to prosecute. This was consistent with the philosophy that individuals are smart enough to make their own decisions and don’t need government’s help. But when the FBI reopened the investigation, Weld was the only one who continued to stand on principle suggesting the FBI was “off the reservation”. Johnson followed Trump’s line in an effort to pick up some disheartened Clinton supporters. Weld on the other hand received the full wrath of the libertarian faithful.

On social media sites it is hard to distinguish the Trump trolls from the libertarian trolls when it comes to flaming anti-Clinton posts.

The challenge libertarians have always had is walking the talk.

Here’s a classic example from a book by a behavioral economist. The University of Chicago is a bastion of libertarian economists. Milton Friedman was their leader. When the University built a new office building for the economics faulty, there was the obvious challenge of how to allocate office space. Rather than setup a marketplace which would have resolved the issue using the principles that each of these academics spent a lifetime promoting, they essentially appointed a bureaucrat. He created a formula based on things like tenure, seniority, and individual contributions to the institution. That same person then applied the formula in a controlled fashion in an effort to reduce conflict. At the moment when these leaders of libertarian thought could actually put their theories to the test in their own lives, they trusted a government solution.

There are a lot of voters in this election cycle looking for a better choice. Libertarianism failed to gain their votes because libertarians lost track of their major asset which is their simple set of principles. Instead of demonstrating how principles can overcome tribalism, they became just as tribal, just as intolerant, and just as opportunistic as everyone else.

Trump Couldn’t Care Less

Tuesday, October 11th, 2016

gop_2016_trump-jpeg-0dacf_c0-112-4666-2832_s885x516

By now everyone on earth knows that Trump sometimes behaves like a pubescent middle school jerk.

His excuse is that this sort of stuff goes on in places where men gather all the time. As a man who has spent a lot of time in locker rooms from my youth to the present day, I can testify that many men tire of these conversations as we grow older. About the time that we become parents or uncles, we appreciate the hurt that objectification can cause. We choose not to associate with those men who remain focused on their own desires. We certainly don’t encourage it, as Billy Bush did. But some men never grow up. Trump appears to be one. The significant difference is that 12-year old boys are talking about what they would like to do. 70-year old billionaire celebrities have the power to live out their adolescent fantasies.

He said it was all talk. No harm was done. He didn’t actually do any of the things that he claimed he did on that video. He admitted that it was a mistake. He asked voters to forgive him and move on.

What moving on in this case means is criticizing perhaps the highest profile woman in US politics today who happens to be his opponent — Hillary Clinton.

The primary point of attack is Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. This particular incident has been thoroughly investigated by both the Congress and the FBI. No charges were filed. Clinton admitted that it was a mistake. She said that no harm was done to anyone. She apologized for her mistake and has asked voters to move on.

Trump has built his campaign on the claim that Clinton did something illegal.Unbiased fact checkers dispute that claim. So I’m not going to dwell on the details of his false claims. They appear to motivate his base and they certainly are doing damage to the whole political process.

Hopefully the hypocrisy of these similar requests for forgiveness is obvious.

But there is more here that needs to be discussed.

That’s the claim against Clinton that her email use was an arrogant disregard for the law. That perceived arrogance is what fuels the deep distrust and even hatred of many Trump supporters.

Trump’s claims regarding this tape, whether true or not, also reveal an arrogant disregard not only for the law, but also for the dignity and respect that all women deserve just because of our common humanity.

Trump blames his actions on the way that beautiful women make HIM feel. He can’t resist the urge to go up and kiss them. What’s worse, there are many documented incidents where he has done just that. He has a pattern. People with OCD who also struggle with impulse control have behaviors that they repeat over and over again. Trump’s pattern involves consuming a breath mint so that his breath will not offend prior to “stealing” a kiss. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that it isn’t his breath that is offensive. It’s his assumption that every woman would welcome that sort of unsolicited embrace. This is the core of his arrogance. He can’t imagine why a woman would object.

He feels that his process of rating women based on their appearance is a complement to those at the top of his scale. He fancies himself as a connoisseur of beauty. But if a woman fails his test, or worse yet, objects to being treated that way, then he feels entitled to demean her in every way imaginable. Worse, he feels no remorse because, in his own words, they deserved it. They deserve it for their failure to “take care of themselves”, or their gall to reject him.

Some of his comments about groping women reveal another dimension to his delusion. Women allow themselves to be groped because he is powerful.

In Trump’s mind, his ability to assault them without consequence is part the privilege that he has earned as a star and a billionaire. Even if this were true, and women did allow those with that sort of power to fondle them without complaint — what sort of man would take advantage of this power?

That’s the difference between Trump and Clinton.

Clinton has used her power and position to protect her private life from those who would seek to use that information to attack her. She uses her power to defend herself and her family from powerful men like Trump who have attacked her from her earliest days in politics. As the first woman to be nominated by a major party for the most powerful political office in the country, she has had to confront sexism her whole life. Her success can in part be attributed to her willingness to acquire and use the power that she needs to accomplish her ambitions. Trump’s supporters admire his unbridled ambition. Unfortunately, an ambitious powerful woman is still feared by many in our country.

Trump has used his power for self-gratification. He doesn’t appear to have any concerns about how his actions affect others. I suspect he equates empathy with weakness. He celebrates his ability to prey on beautiful women because it supports his basic narcissism. When asked by Howard Stern about how he satisfies all of the women that he sleeps with, Trump said “I couldn’t care less”.

Trump’s Twilight Zone

Tuesday, October 4th, 2016

 

This has been a remarkable week or so in a remarkable campaign. There appears to be another dimension that the Trump campaign and their supporters live in. It’s the twilight zone where belief trumps fact and reality is defined by the campaign and the candidate.

Exhibit 1 — Who won the debate?

This one is easy on several different levels.

The debate happened. Reputable organizations polled the public using scientific methods. They reported the results of those polls. They all indicated that Clinton won by a wide margin.

The second measurement is what happened to the polls after the debate. Again Clinton’s polling numbers have gone up and her prospects for winning the election have improved. That improvement was directly related to her debate performance and the actions of the Trump campaign following the debate.

To hear it from the Trump campaign’s perspective, he won the debate because a number of online unscientific polls on conservative sites said he was the winner.

Any problem with the debate was the result of a bad microphone that affected sound in the auditorium. Then there was the moderator who attempted to fact check Trump. And of course there is the crooked media who are now operating as an arm of the Clinton campaign in attempting to report the facts on the ground.

Perhaps this approach makes some sense in perpetuating the “us versus them” meme that is at the heart of the Trump campaign. The problem is that this meme makes it very difficult for the Trump campaign to recruit any new voters. When anyone who isn’t with you is your enemy, how are you going to convince some of those that you have been treating as enemies that they should change their minds?

Exhibit 2 — I did not have sex with that woman. Oops sorry, I meant to type I opposed the Iraq War.

This was one of the key moments in the debate.

Trump has made this particular position his Big Lie. He insists that he was against the war in Iraq FROM THE START.

The fact is that in answer to Howard Stern’s question “Are you for invading Iraq?”, he said, “Yeah, I guess so.” That isn’t a hearty endorsement of the invasion, but it is clearly not opposition either. He also provided an equivocal answer to Neil Cavuto, “it’s sort like either do it or don’t do it.” Trump clearly was not a supporter, but he also was not the opponent FROM THE START that he claims.

In the debate, he doubled down by attacking the media for reporting the facts (again) and then suggested that the moderator give Sean Hannity a call. While they may have had private conversations, there is no public record of it. Since Sean Hannity is now an official advisor to the campaign, he is hardly a reliable reference to past private history.

The result is that many Trump supporters now question whether fact-checkers can be trusted rather than admit that Trump was again making stuff up.

Exhibit 3 — Trump loves women

Hillary Clinton set several traps in the debate and Trump fell into most of them.

The Alicia Machado trap was a public confirmation of two of Clinton’s basic claims. Trump is unstable and Trump mistreats women. In front of a national audience he not only admitted to attacking Rosie O’Donnell, but said that she deserved it. He continued to attack Machado after the debate suggesting that she deserved the treatment that she received because she gained weight. This caused a whole avalanche of new information about Trump’s past statements and behavior with other women including many of those who were involved with The Apprentice show.

Trump and his campaign have reacted by attacking both Bill and Hillary Clinton for their treatment of women who have claimed past relationships with Bill.

Women represent a substantial swing vote in this country. Trump is doing himself no favors by perpetuating his attack on Machado and attempting to drag around old news about Hillary and Bill.

Those old white men who are the core of Trump’s support appear to have no problem with either Trump’s past history or his current aggressive response any time a woman criticizes him.

Exhibit 4 — Trump and taxes

We finally found out that Trump lost a lot of money in the 90’s and may have used those losses to shelter roughly $1B in income.

Trump and his campaign have not disputed those figures. Instead they have tried to spin Trump as a savvy business man who is an expert in tax law and will fix the tax system that he took advantage of.

This fails to answer the basic question that many people have regarding Trump’s loss. How does a savvy business man manage to lose $1B. His weak defense is that it was a tough time and many people were losing money. So does that mean his business skills are going to be effective only in good times? In bad times he is going to lose money just like everyone else?

His debate comment that he was “smart” not to pay taxes is also losing him blue collar votes. His campaign has gone further by suggesting that he does pay a lot of other taxes. But that’s not the issue. Everyone else also pays all of those other taxes too. The issue is how does he support his populist stand when he pays no federal income tax? It isn’t a question of whether or not he has done anything illegal. It is the fact that he IS part of that .1% who have benefited at the expense of working people. So it is curious that some of those very same working people still trust him.

Trump and his campaign have been trying to cast the NYT as the culprit by releasing the documents. The reality is that he could have avoided this by releasing his tax returns as every other candidate has done for the past 50 years. The NYT has a responsibility to its readers to provide them all of the information that they need in order to make an informed choice. They are doing their job. Trump isn’t.

Trump supporters believe that the tax returns aren’t important. Clearly that’s not the case with the rest of the country.

Exhibit 5 — Trump and OPM (other people’s money)

The Trump Foundation may turn out to be the smoking gun, at least from a financial point of view, that Trump opponents have been looking for.

Trump already had to pay a fine because of a “contribution” that was made “in error” from the foundation to the Florida AG Bondi’s political campaign shortly before she declined to participate in the Trump University lawsuit.

Now it turns out that Trump hasn’t contributed to his own foundation for a decade. Instead he has used other people’s money. Why did those people contribute that money? Turns out that most of those contributions were directly connected to business dealings that Trump had. The contributions were NOT because of the charitable mission of the foundation.

We also learned that Trump used the foundation like a piggy bank to pay personal expenses to the tune of $250K.

Now we also have learned that Trump not only used the foundation to pay his personal bills, he also used his foundation to purchase speaking engagements at various conservative gatherings over the past six years. These speaking engagements were the start of his presidential campaign.

Finally, the NY AG confirmed that the foundation was operating illegally in taking contributions from third parties when they were licensed to only distribute family money. Until the foundation resolves those issues and provides more detailed reports on past activities, they are effectively out of business.

Trump and his campaign have not denied any of these claims. Instead they have said that Trump contributes millions of dollars of his own money to charity in addition to the money that comes from his foundation. They also say that the foundation is a volunteer organization that can’t be expected to get everything right. Finally, they are suggesting that the NY AG actions are just partisan politics.

But there is big difference between making a mistake and the pattern of behavior that the NYT and Real Clear Politics have discovered. If Trump is in fact the tax genius that he claims to be, he should have known about foundation tax rules too. If he did, then he knew what he was doing was illegal “self-dealing”. If he didn’t know, then perhaps he isn’t really the genius that he claims to be, and won’t be able to single-handedly rewrite the tax code.

Trump supporters don’t want to talk about the Trump foundation. They only want to talk about the Clinton foundation and how she brazenly “sold” influence during her time in the State department to big Clinton foundation donors. The problem is that they have failed to connect the dots between this supposed influence peddling and some evidence of personal enrichment. Even if she did provide special access to big donors, all that money went to charitable purposes that have all been documented and are easy to track. There is no evidence that any of the Clinton’s benefited from those donations in any personal way. Unfortunately the bias is so strong, that in the absence of evidence, suspicion is sufficient to convict Clinton in the minds of these voters.

Summary

The one thing that Trump is VERY good at is stoking the fears and supporting the biases of his voters. His success in branding his opponents from Low Energy Jeb to Crooked Hillary is at the core of his campaign’s remarkable showing.

His populist message combined with his caustic “take no prisoners admit no weaknesses” style appeals to disenfranchised and marginalized groups of voters. Ben White from Politico best summarized it.

The GOP nominee could probably set himself on fire and still count on around 40 percent of the electorate to support him.

Those 40% are content to live in the twilight zone that Trump and the right wing media have built for them. It works. They are less fearful. They are more optimistic. They feel justified that the evil doers are finally being held accountable. They feel part of a winning team.

The problem is that it is a fantasy. It is not real.

Hopefully the rest of the voting public will decline the invitation to join them.

 

You Can’t Just Wing It

Monday, August 8th, 2016

DCF 1.0

It wasn’t all that long ago that Trump was riding high.

He got the bump that he was looking for from his convention and many around the country were starting to talk about what a Trump presidency would look like.

But as quickly as he rose, he fell.

He couldn’t allow the spotlight to shine on anyone else.

Even after Clinton stumbled in an interview about her dealings with the FBI, Trump produced a virtual waterfall of “news” that turned the spotlight back on himself.  In more or less chronological order he:

  1. Attacked a Gold Star Muslim family who spoke out against his immigration policies.
  2. Said that the NFL sent him a letter complaining about the debate dates (NFL said it sent no such letter).
  3. Claimed that Russia would not invade Ukraine only to have to backtrack when informed that they already did in 2014
  4. Criticized a fire marshal in Columbus because the occupancy code was enforced.
  5. Praised Paul Ryan’s primary opponent.
  6. Told a woman with a crying baby to leave his rally.
  7. Accepted a Purple Heart from a vet with the statement, “I always wanted to get the Purple Heart, this was much easier.” Less than a day earlier, the NYT published a piece on his Viet Nam draft dodging.
  8. Refused to endorse Ryan, McCain, and Ayotte (he backtracked on this too later in the week)
  9. Claimed that the November elections would be rigged against him
  10. Claimed to have seen a top secret Iranian video of money being unloaded from a plane in Iran.  What he actually saw was publicly available video shot in Switzerland that had nothing to do with delivery of money to Iran. His campaign then corrected him. Then he repeated the lie again.

He has played right into Clinton’s hands with this strategy.  Her campaign has portrayed Trump as a dangerous choice and then patiently waited for Trump to prove it.  Just one indication of how big an issue this has become is when Charles Krauthammer, that champion hater of everything liberal, feels he has to comment on Trump’s fitness for the office.

As Trump’s poll numbers dropped, a parade of Republican incumbents have abandoned him.

Now 50 leading Republican security experts have released an open letter warning that a Trump presidency would put the nation’s security at risk. 

Mr. Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

Mr. Trump, the officials warn, “would be the most reckless president in American history.”

Mr. Trump responded by laying the blame for the world “mess” at their feet.  He blamed them not only for the Iraq war, but also for the deaths in Benghazi and the rise of ISIS.  The latter two are curious since they occurred during the Obama administration when all of these officials were out of power.  But that’s about par for the course for the Trump campaign.

Here’s the basic problem.

The strategy that Trump used to monopolize the news cycle during the primaries is backfiring.  During the primaries the gaggle of other candidates were spending all of their time responding to Trump’s endless streams of insults and bravado.

In this general election cycle, the press is trying to inform the voters about who Trump is.  They hold him accountable for every gaffe.  They document the responses of experts when he says something dangerous.  But the sheer volume of this information simply reinforces Clinton’s claim that she is the more mature and experienced choice.  At this point, she doesn’t have to do a lot more other than to remind people that she isn’t Trump.

If Trump were able to stay on message for more than a day, he would have a real chance in this election because Clinton IS well known and has high negatives with many voters.

At this point, however, it may be too late.

His latest attempt to demonstrate some gravitas in a speech at the Detroit Economic Club drew mixed reviews.  His economic plan is a mishmash of old Republican ideas, old Democratic ideas, and new populist stuff.  There was a little something for everyone, which will likely confuse rather than satisfy undecided voters.  Just a couple of examples include making child care deductible.  Most working people don’t file the more complicated form required to claim this deduction.  Poor people don’t pay enough in taxes to take advantage of it.  As a result, it mostly benefits those that are well off.  That doesn’t square with his core demographic.  He also pledged to halt new regulations including those that would affect Wall Street.  This is seems to be at odds with his claim that he was going to crack down on Wall Street.

Trump is his own worst enemy because under the pressure of this campaign his true nature is on display for the whole country.  That nature is an unstable narcissist with an insatiable appetite for the spot light.  But like many who have also suffered from that obsession, the public is beginning to realize that he isn’t the winner that he claims to be.  He doesn’t really have wings, just wax and feathers.  Those are not enough to carry him to victory in the November.

 

 

 

Trump is All In

Tuesday, June 14th, 2016

all in 2

Trump’s speech on June 13th destroyed any hope by Republicans that he would pivot to the center or temper his language in an attempt to appear more Presidential. That moderated Trump lasted for a minute or so into his prepared remarks.

Then the RealDonaldTrump returned to take advantage of this national tragedy. He doubled down on his agenda of bigotry and xenophobia.

In no uncertain terms, he claimed that the very existence of our country was at risk because of Muslim refugees, immigrants, and even American citizens. He not only reiterated his call for a “temporary” ban on Muslim immigrants but threatened “big consequences” for Muslims living in this country if they failed to report suspected terrorists.

In doing so, Trump aligned himself with the far right nationalist anti-immigrant European movements.

Trump promises to ban all Muslim immigrants until he is able to guarantee a “perfect screen” to eliminate all potential dangers that any particular immigrant might pose. The head of the FBI has already testified that such a screen is impossible.

The Orlando shooter was born in New York. His ex-wife felt that he was violent and bi-polar. Though she said he was religious, he did not regularly attend services. He at various times bragged that he was affiliated with al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Al Qaeda is a Sunni group. Hezbollah is a Shia group. They are mortal enemies and both oppose ISIS. What they and he do share is a violent hatred for gays. Though we may never know all of the details, a picture is emerging of a confused mentally unstable guy who had frequented gay bars and was mostly interested in killing gay people.

That didn’t stop Trump from blaming the killer’s family who emigrated from Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation in the late ‘70’s. Reagan was conducting a proxy war at the time by funding the mujaheddin including Bin Laden. During those same years, 40% of all Afghanis who applied were admitted to this country because they were fleeing Soviet oppression. To hear Trump tell it, this event would have been prevented if we had had the foresight to deny this particular family’s request for asylum 40 years ago.  If we had the opportunity to turn back time, we might also convince Trump’s parents that the world would be a safer place if they stopped at three kids.

To cap it off, in interviews conducted before the speech, Trump suggested that President Obama might have secret motives for what Trump described is Obama’s unwillingness to confront Islamic terrorists.  This is continuation of the conspiracy-laden warnings that Trump started in 2008 when he claimed Obama wasn’t born in this country.  It also ignores recent news on the ground that the Obama lead ISIS strategy has been working in Syria, Libya, and Iraq.  But facts have never been Trump’s strong point.

Whether the Republican Party likes it or not, Trump is determined to make this election a referendum on Trump. In no uncertain terms, he is asking voters to decide whether Latino and Muslim citizens are real Americans.

If Trump wins, he will have his answer and act accordingly.

Honesty

Sunday, June 12th, 2016


truth 2

 

One of the big issues in this campaign appears to be honesty.

Just looking at the facts, the answer is obvious.

As tracked by Politifact, Trump tells the complete truth only 3% of the time.  Clinton tells the complete truth 23% of the time.  It isn’t even that Trump is telling a nuanced truth.  60% of the things he says don’t have a shred of truth.  These aren’t just little lies either.  19% are pants on fire whoppers.

Here’s just a sampling.

Crime is rising.  It’s not.

“I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering” as the World Trade Center collapsed.    Trump appears to be the only person who saw this.

“Frankly, (Hillary Clinton) doesn’t do very well with women.”  She leads Trump with women by the largest margin in history.

The question has to be why some polls give Trump higher marks than Clinton on honesty when the facts simply don’t support it?

Some of it might be the fact that Clinton only recently clinched her party’s nomination.  Since that time her overall polling numbers have been going up.

But something else is going on here.

When we dig into the responses regarding Trump, what emerges is that some of those supporting Trump feel that he is more genuine that Clinton.  His willingness to speak in an unfiltered way causes them to assume that he is speaking from the heart.  Clinton on the other hand is a professional politician.  She is schooled in the sort of cautious speech that some people associate with fear of “telling it like it is”.

This is also reflected in the Trump’s assault on what he and his followers call Political Correctness.  His willingness to offend virtually every special interest group in the country for the entertainment of his white male audience wins him points for authenticity.

Perhaps this is how he actually feels.  It is also possible that he is sincerely expressing his unfiltered opinion, though that opinion appears to change based on the reaction that it generates.

IMHO nothing could be further from the truth.  His “authenticity” is an act.  It is the result of his talent as con man.  He built a following pointing out that the conservative working man has been duped by the Republican Establishment.  Trump, however, is also playing them for suckers by channeling Triumph the Insult Dog and letting them fill in the blanks based on their own fears and biases.

Those who support him, however, have such deep animus for Clinton, that they have latched onto to this difference to justify their support.  They say that he is just “Donald being Donald”.  That he doesn’t really mean all of the things that he says.  He will ultimately make “deals” that are in the best interests of the country.

Let’s look at some of those deals from the perspective of what is best for the country.

The most obvious is the Supreme Court.  Whomever is the next President will have at least two and perhaps three vacancies to fill.

Clinton will nominate liberal judges.  The result of that will likely be reversing the narrow Citizen’s United decision.  That will allow new limits to be placed on private money in elections.  Trump supposedly shares this interest.  He claims that his own personal fortune means he can’t be bought.  But the judges he has proposed nominating support the view that corporate money is free speech.

Instead Trump has promised that he will appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade.  Whether or not this is even possible, packing the court based on an abortion litmus test sets a very dangerous precedent.

Clinton has put forward solid policies to both reduce the debt and improve the job prospects for the very people who are supporting Trump.  Trump has only said that he will be the best job’s president the country has ever seen.  It also came out recently that he routinely fails to pay his own workers and contractors. 

None of this information will likely alter the minds of those who already have cast their lot with Trump.  They are so deep in their denial that there is little that Trump can do between now and the election to lose their support.  The rest of the country, however, who approach their job of picking the next President more analytically will discover that the Trump campaign is a sham.  They will reject the violence, xenophobia, and cult of personality that Trump has created and select Clinton because of her policies.