Winning the popular vote is a participation medal

Full disclosure. For all the wasted angst I've had in the aftermath of this election you'd think I'm a registered Democrat. I am most assuredly not. But because I lean that way on most social issues (actually, I probably mostly lean Libertarian socially), I've paid a bit of attention to how the Dems manage defeat. And as I imply in the blog title, it is a defeat in the only score that matters, the Electoral College. If you came here for rhetorical fireworks, may I direct you to coverage of the recent event at the Kennedy School of Government event at Harvard where folks from the Trump and Clinton campaigns went toe to toe after the election. Must see TV. But for an engaged but somewhat dispassionate look-see, read on.

I was pretty ambivalent about writing this, my planned "last" post for the blog. Still too many smoldering embers, ready to ignite again. In that mindset I was initially leery of pouring salt on what is still for some a fresh wound. So I figured I wouldn't write a post at all. But then, I remembered why I started the blog in the first place; as a space where I could entertain (hopefully) a more select (dare I say nuanced) audience than I would get if I just threw generic literary grenades on Facebook. So in summary, hell yes, I'm going to blog. Besides, this really is my planned last post. Folks who've been along for the ride, thanks! But, in the true spirit of full disclosure, for my (mostly) left-leaning Democrat friends, you may choose to stop reading now. You've been warned.

Well, Donald Trump won. IMO, you're either surprised or you're a liar, because even HE didn't think he was going to win. As Colin Powell once famously said, in reference to Iraq and the American invasion, "if you break that thing you've bought it". How very true, America.

This was an election between two historically flawed candidates. The only difference being, one had a message, and the other one lost. It was really that simple. Despite how they want to parse the details, "Make American Great Again" was a much stronger tagline than "I'm With Her". It still is.

I think only time will tell how successful Mr. Trump will be once he takes office, but after all the crazy of the campaign I'm not going to be the one who bets against him. But as I've adopted as a generic consolation line for my liberal friends, "look, the upside is that Trump was easily the most moderate Republican in the field". Think about it, would you rather have had President Cruz?

But in the aftermath I continue to be more intrigued by what happens with the Democrats, as I'm confident the GOP can self-destruct without my assistance. What happened in November was that the party of Clinton, powered by Wall Street, Hollywood, and liberal elites, failed to appreciate just how much their standard bearer was despised by a largely hidden swath of America, so much so that they were willing to roll the dice on a modern day version of Archie Bunker. IMO that accounts for the wild inaccuracy of the pre-election polling. The disgruntled were simply not part of the traditional voting electorate prior to now.

But losing is one thing. Not learning from it is simply galling. The Clinton campaign playing the blame game is entirely a human response; no one wants to stand up and admit they sucked. It's easier to blame James Comey, the media, the alt-right. It's harder to say, "we ran a poor campaign", but look at it from this perspective, "YOU LOST TO DONALD J. TRUMP!". If any line deserves all caps, it this one. Not using the election loss as an opportunity to learn and get stronger would simply be a shame.

I'd be a lot less disappointed by the outcome if I think it'll ultimately result in a new and revitalized Democratic Party, but the re-election of Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader doesn't say "new" like a Tesla. More like Yzma from Disney's "The Emperor's New Groove", minus the charm. Really folks, what the hell are you thinking? Her great fundraising ability? Where did that get you?

“Trying to please everybody is impossible - if you did that, you'd end up in the middle with nobody liking you. You've just got to make the decision about what you think is your best, and do it.”  - John Lennon

Gee, and I only thought he wrote great songs. Beyond the Party clinging to the leaders of the past, my greater concern is the inability (or unwillingness) of the Democrats to adopt an clear and singular identity, instead choosing to try an be "all things to all people", which seems to not have been successful the last hundred times they tried it. And while I probably agree more with "traditional" Democrat policy positions than those of the GOP, what I view as an utter lack of conviction on the part of the Clinton Democratic party has long kept me rather loosely affiliated as a Republican-leaning independent, at least until Bernie came along. Then I was a Bernie-leaning Independent. Now my recipe for a new-Democratic Party isn't for it to become the "party of Bernie", but hell, at least try and be something more than "Chamber of Commerce, GOP-lite". Puleeze. But unfortunately, what I'm hear from the Democratic leadership post-Trumpageddon is a doubling-down on the same stupid identity politics that got them shellacked in the first place. This crap about listening to "their" constituencies and trying to create some sort of consensus policy platform is the same playbook that has now resulted in soon-to-be 0-for-3 in branches of the Federal government. What would I do? Hah, sorry you asked.

Care about working class Americans? Well, lets start with reforming unions, the historic backbone of the Democratic Party. Either reform or let folks like Scott Walker do it for you. And if you don't think it's necessary, please look at the election results, as painful as rewinding that may be. Donald Trump WON Michigan. WON Pennsylvania. Won Wisconsin. Won blue collar workers everywhere. Why, because all those blue collar workers are racists? If you believe that I'm surprised you've been reading this blog at all, what, with your head buried up your... let's just say in the sand. No, Democrats in general, and Hillary in particular this election, didn't speak to working- and middle-class Americans. Now this as an observation, not presented as some sort of fact. Actually, akin to the idea of the "first woman President", I think the decline of union participation is in many cases an perverse byproduct of success, not an intrinsic flaw. Union achievements in promoting worker rights and protections are historically important, but I think many take those gains for granted. Today society is ever more focused on the "here and now" versus the hard fought battles that got Americans the rights and privileges they enjoy today. Same goes with women's rights. The idea of a woman President is, thankfully, something that many/most Americans simply take for granted, thus Hillary running on gender identity as some sort of birthright didn't appeal to voters, particularly young women, who would rather shatter their own glass ceiling rather than that of a multimillionaire septuagenarian.

So Dems, stand up for workers (not their union bosses). Stand up for immigrants (and not just so they can vote for you). Stand up for non-descrimination (because it's right, not because it's poll-tested). But anti-business? Where will that get you? Demonizing Trump voters? Some of them are (or used to be) Democrats. Don't be the party of hate, let the GOP own it. So how to put that into practice, in a new year with the GOP essentially controlling all branches of government? Here's what I'd suggest. Give the GOP the rope, if they choose to make a noose out of it, let 'em. Don't be the party of obstruction, it will only cast Democrats as the villain to "progress". Agree and cooperate where there are gains to be made, in jobs, in the economy, in peace. Disagree EARLY when policies are divergent to Democratic ideals, not only after they go bad. State objections clearly and concisely, but don't sweat over the messy details of governance; the GOP owns that now. The clearest best upcoming example is healthcare, soon to be formerly known as Obamacare. Can the GOP, with an orthopedic surgeon/politician at the helm of HHS, do better? Let's see, but in the meantime I'll be putting some new money into medical device stocks (wink emoji). Call me back with the cost curve in three years, we'll have a drink. You'll pay. Actually, we'll all pay.

Folks, I'm closing the blog on a upbeat note. Fans of American politics have, in the last 16 years, lived through the pendulum swinging from talk of a "permanent Democratic/Republican majority" in Congress, because if there's anything close to a truism in politics, it's the irresistibility of overreach on the part of the party in power. And that invariably leads to, you guessed it, a transfer of power back to the minority party. It may take eight years, but Democrats, please don't sit on the status-quo, waiting for 2020. Start rebuilding today. And thanks for reading!

Election Post-script. Notes for Dejected Americans

Full disclosure. In a statement intended to surprise no one, I'm a political junkie. And have been for quite a while. Long enough to watch the pendulum swing both ways. Long enough to know this isn't the end of the Republic. So was last night a surprise? Duh, yeah, but honestly, not on the same scale as the Cubs winning the World Series (#GoCubsGo). But very much not outside the realm of probability (Nate Silver, of fivethirtyeight.com fame, wins again). Analysis can wait for a subsequent post, mostly because there's too much smoke in the air, and the wounds are still too fresh. This post has a different intent. While not a identified Democrat, or for that matter an identified liberal, today's post is addressed to those who are disheartened at the outcome of last night's election. Believe me (sorry, had to throw that in there), there are silver linings. Here are a few.

1. This was NOT a repudiation of the ideals of the Democratic Party. The Dems have long been viewed as the standard bearers of the American working class, until recently personified by union workers, teachers, public servants, police and fire, manufacturing. College educated or not. There's at least half the population that thinks that there are significant headwinds facing working class Americans, and one of the many takeaways from last night is that the desperation is real. Real enough for people to roll the dice on something, anything that might offer a chance. The Democratic Party has, in my lifetime, has always been closer to the hearts of the public, if not necessarily the wallets. But having a compassionate heart can be challenging when hope, in the form of economic stability and opportunity, is waning or lost. Americans have ALWAYS been, as a people, off-the-scale charitable, compared to other countries. I don't think that's gone anywhere.

2. The late Mario Cuomo said it best. "You campaign in rhetoric, you govern in prose". I very strongly suspect that any references to walls, repealing Obamacare, and indictments, will be coming only from members of the losing party and the paid talking media heads, and they're entitled to protest with vigor. But IMO most Americans, of both parties, won't be listening. The campaign is OVER, now the process shifts to expectations and actions. And I suspect that the incoming government will be quickly looking at how they can get some quick wins, but no one said winning was easy. Now get to work. We're watching. An acquaintance said some year's ago, "the losing party earns the right to bitch". True.

3. It's still a divided government, and it's a good thing. Despite claims to the contrary, this was absolutely NOT a victory for the "right". Yeah, Mike Pence is the VP-elect. When someone can give me a list of accomplishments credited to a VP in the last 40 years I'll reconsider. And yes, I'll grant you Al Gore invented the internet. But a new right wing victory? Nah, if that were the case we'd be talking President-elect Cruz (ugh.). Let's call it what it is, a center-right President-elect. Pro-choice? He was always your guy, so Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere. Supreme Court? The second amendment won't go the way of 13th floors. Obamacare? Well, no one anywhere didn't think it needed to be fixed, so let the new guy deal with it. But we're not going to turn into a police state in January. Unlike the other potential GOP candidates, this Pres-elect arrives nearly chit-free (well, if you don't include Russia [that's a joke people]). He owes about no one in D.C., and that's liberating in an unheard-of fashion. BUT...unlike the lesson President Obama learned the hard way, there is a "way of getting things done" in Washington, that that way will go through one guy. Paul Ryan. It will be an interesting evolution of a relationship. Could be "Lethal Weapon", could be "The Odd Couple". We'll see. But it absolutely won't be a blank slate for the Tea Party. They'll continue talking to themselves, like they're not taking their meds.

4. The Democratic Party 2.0. I'll be very upfront here, I think the successes of the prior Clinton years have, not unexpectedly, led to a slow, steady, and stealthy shift from the "party of the people" to the "party of the status quo", funded by the interests of those who'd greatly benefitted from the economy of the 80's and 90's. Wall Street, big business, union leaders (NOT rank and file workers). Democrats in power turned into Chamber of Commerce Republicans. But power does that to people, it's human nature. Why be optimistic? Look who's in the on deck circle. My man Bernie. My almost fave Warren. My real fave Tulsi. My other fave and new badass Senator from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth. The bench, IMO, finally has the chance to emerge from a heavy yoke. Sorry, but I'm optimistic. Theo Epstein would be proud of these new Cubs.

My fellow Americans, this isn't like The Empire Strikes Back, when Luke disregards Yoda's pleas to stay and complete his training (Dagobah, it's no Cancun). Hope isn't lost. The purview of this democracy is, now more than ever, the ability to air and debate diverse and often conflicting ideas, with the short term judges the voting public, and the long term judge history.

Closing with yet another over religious reference, a Portuguese proverb. "God writes straight with crooked lines". I hope it applies here too.

A few more posts, then I'll probably shut this down and get on with life. Thanks as always for reading!

The Briefest Voting Guide You'll Read

Full disclosure. For long time readers (hah, seriously), thanks for following along this self-indulgent journey, I hope at times it was entertaining. If you were/are a serious partisan and felt somehow that I didn't afford the political process the gravitas our fine country deserved, yea, you came to the wrong blog. But if you're a fan of the process, the democracy that allows the rich diversity of opinion to shape our country, well...this has been for you.

A lot of posts ago I paraphrased Yoda by saying "vote, or don't vote. there is no try". Or something like that. And I still mean it. Here's my bottom line. I would suggest you do something, vote Hillary, vote Trump, don't vote, whatever. But perhaps do something that you can look back on in the future and say, "yea, I did that". Of course, being unable to predict the future (yes, I'm talking to you. ALL of you), this recommendation has it's caveats. So this brief election guide will try and distill some of the perspectives (NB. it's not a pro/con of the issues, 'cause that's crap. they're all lying at this point)

In the broadest possible brushstrokes, here's my gestalt:

Status quo (which is/isn't a bad thing, you decide). Hillary. I think for the most part things stay the same. An evolution of the Affordable Care Act. Largely the same level of regulation (Wall St., etc...) as we currently have. Minimal/no change in foreign policy, same of domestic policy/entitlements. Like I said, status quo.

Unhappy with status quo? Trump. Yea, it's a crap shoot of sorts, but it's not the end of the Republic as we know it. Actually, probably not even as much as some/many wish for, the whole "drain the swamp" rhetoric. Why? Because, like I believe is true with the economy in general, the President actually has a lot LESS power and influence over broad issues like the economy than he/she thinks they do, and even if they wield a modicum of influence, often times (changes in monetary policy, trade policy, etc...) the effects of those changes don't necessarily coincide with the 4/8 years of a Presidential term, ie the effect may not be linked to the cause. Confusing? Sorry. I think the "finger on the nuclear button" was a weak campaign attack, akin to the "3 am phone call" Hillary tried on Obama, the guy who ultimately got Osama Bin Laden. But I'm leaving the 10th inning postgame show for next week after the election.

Dislike both candidates? I'm completely comfortable with active non-voting. If you stand up publicly and defend your choice/candidate, I understand. Remember, I'm a Bernie guy (sorry to rub that in there). I would have also been a Biden guy. A Bush guy. An O'Malley guy. Probably a Kasich guy. Probably NOT a Cruz guy. So there. No, I wasn't looking for perfection. I think that's always unrealistic. But my last (almost) Bernie plug. Someone I actually believed gave a damn. I don't think that's true with either of the current choices, hence my comfort with non-voting. Ultimately they're both a bad cocktail of self interest mixed with special interests. Typical Washington.

Issues? No. Please be assured that both sides would sell you the Brooklyn Bridge (a promissory note) if they thought it would get your vote. But will either do what they say, good or bad? Doubt it. And remember, the POTUS doesn't make laws, that's Congress. (someone please let Donald know)

That's it, brief. Ish. If you already read the blog you're engaged enough for me, so congrats! Make a choice and be cool with it. Here's a true anecdote for the close. I spend a good deal of time with a large group of people I'm pretty confident don't vote. Not because they're not affected, because they very obviously are, as they get government assistance. No, they don't vote because they long ago lost hope. Hope that, regardless of who's in power, there's really someone in high office that gives two s*&ts about the poor, the homeless, veterans, the mentally ill, the down and outs. And I agree with them. This election is about who holds the keys to the kingdom, not who cares for the least among us (hah, spend the whole post trying to work in an obtuse Biblical reference. Score! Sorry/not sorry if you've offended, here's another one). Rejoice, and be glad. This will all be over next week.

Unless Egg McMuffin wins Utah, and Hills and the Don are tied in the Electoral College. Damn, now that would be something.

As always, thanks for reading!

Are we there yet? A debate post-mortem. Did we learn anything?

Full disclosure. I HAD to watch last night's debate on DVR. There's an American Presidential election every four years. The Cubs are on the brink of history. Easy call.

Let's get this out of the way. I think Hillary will win. Wow, that's like the opening line to an AA meeting. But I think there are ways that, in the next 20 days, she can still pull a defeat from the jaws of victory. Read on.

Pretty much almost anyone who's last name isn't Trump thought Hills won the debate last night. More broadly, pretty much anyone who watched ANY of the debates thought Hillary won all of them. In any sort of normal universe, those laws of physics apply. But the Donald is in many ways the physical personification of the Death Star. "That's no moon". He has, for better or worse, brought a new and previously unseen gravity (not to be confused with gravitas) to this election season, and there does exist the possibility that a fundamental change in something elemental, like gravity, can change the long-standing equations that have applied in the past to political physics.

The popular press was up in arms last night over the Don's refusal to preemptively accept the results of the upcoming election. It was a classic dick Trump move, and c'mon folks, did you expect anything less? But I was a bit surprised, not with Trump, who's lost the ability to shock (me) with anything he says (I'd long since abandoned any close attention to his "rhetoric"), but with the uniformity of "shocked, I'm shocked" response of the media, to what appeared to be a typical over-the-top Trumpian comment. And that, in turn, leads to the alt-universe idea of a "rigged" process.

Trump may lay claim to discovering America, but it was really Bernie who brought the idea of a rigged process into this election's lexicon (he more frequently referred to it as a "rigged economy"). And the BIG problem with this, in my view, is that he (Bernie) was proven RIGHT. Ugh. Early in the Wikileaks e-mail dump were memos from the Democratic National Committee (with friends like that, Hillary almost didn't need Trump) essentially confirming what most already suspected, that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (soon to be employed by the Clinton Foundation) and the DNC were in cahoots with Team Clinton from the start, conspiring to block any and all paths to the nomination from anyone other than Goldman Sachs. Trump just simply picked up the leftover conspiracy after Bernie folded and has run with it. It galvanizes the Trump crowd, and still maybe captures some of the Feel the Bern group that feel compelled to deny Clinton the final prize. I think it's only a few folks, but how "few" is "few", is as opaque as Bill Clinton's question of the definition of "is". Ugh again.

The second concern as we enter the eighth inning of this political World Series is the possibility that the election may be more "Brexit" than "business as usual". Although in the rear view mirror of most, the Anglophile in me still marvels at how essentially EVERY "reputable" poll of Britons voting on Britain staying in the EU has them staying, not heading for the brexits (hah, pun). As the late John McLaughlin liked to say, WRONG!

The concept of "groupthink" is nothing new in American politics or government. Think the Bay of Pigs, or Iraq, as examples of where all the smart money went the opposite way of reality. I'm not willing to bet that this time's the same, but I'm saying that it's hard to see the black swan until it's sitting at the Resolute desk with a supermodel on his lap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_desk

Wrapping things up before I get back to more important issues of the day (#GoCubsGo), I wanted to close with a musing about last night's Sealy commercial masquerading as political discourse. A simple one word description of what separates Hillary and the Donald's style is "hedge". Not hedge as in "hedge fund", but hedge as in a speaking style. Hillary, the attorney, hedges everything. "Do you love your grandchildren?". "Well, can you clarify 'love'". Donald, lacking any gap between ego and mouth, "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait". I can't say "ugh" enough. I think a lot of American's are more used to being around people that don't hedge, and frankly, look warily upon those that do hedge with an element of mistrust. I don't know if that little tidbit will matter, but I don't really pretend to know when a black swan is around the corner.

Did I know that the Cubs would come back from a tied game with a grand slam?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/sports/baseball/chicago-cubs-los-angeles-dodgers-miguel-montero.html?_r=0

Did I think the Cubs would beat San Francisco in the bottom of the ninth?

https://youtu.be/j8IB9kueOUE

It's not over 'til it's over. Or as Joe Maddon says, "it's 27 outs". My advice to the concerned? Stay engaged, and buckle your seat belt, we may encounter turbulence. Thanks for reading!

Debate #2 - Lessons from James Bond movies about sealing the deal

Full disclosure. I thought there was a chance (no more than 10%) that this would be my last blog post, 'cause this game was gonna be OVER! Seriously, comments that would make Mike Ditka blush should in normal times be enough iceberg to sink several Titanics, yet here I am, writing a debate post-script that the game's not over, and there's still time on the clock. Sorry, just being honest (IMO). If it makes you feel any better, I still think the race is her's to lose. But you better keep reading.

Why I blog (about politics). Because I'm a self-described independent, and listening to the partisan talking heads on TV makes me crazy (but I still watch). Tonight is no different, as the spin started the moment the debate ended. Here's my story... (cue "Law and Order" theme music):

Who won? Donald Trump didn't lose, so he won a reprieve to live (and campaign) another day. Hillary Clinton didn't win tonight, and frankly, she should have. Hence the James Bond analogy. As everyone knows, the reason there's been so many James Bond movies is that the bad guys refuse to simply kill him. Quickly. But noooo!

They have to launch into a lengthy exposition as to why they're so smart, Bond's so stupid, blah blah blah. All the while 007 is wriggling out of his wrist restraints, and voila! he's free, bad guy's dead, the British Empire survives. No Hillary, the real world outside of Goldman Sachs isn't like that. It's less Sean Connery as James Bond, and more like Sean Connery in The Untouchables.
Question number 2 (early) of tonight's debate had to do with the recently revealed (but 10 year old) tape of the Donald being his disgusting self. Trump described it as "locker room banter" and Hillary pretty much let him claim that ground. It was unambiguously disgusting, and she should have pummeled him on the head with that mace until she was pulled off of his bruised and bloodied body by Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper. Perhaps (and I'm giving Team Clinton the benefit of the doubt) there was a concern over backlash regarding Bill Clinton's prior transgressions, but if that were the case, they doubly lost, because the Donald went there too, and hammered Hillary for that one as well. I think many of the viewing public were waiting for Hillary to go Rhonda frickin' Rousey on him, and I suspect that much of 'merica wanted a ringside seat to this Octagon fight. And they simply didn't get it. Bad strategery, Hills. Should have brought in Aroldis Chapman to close.

What did we get? More (insane) Trump sniffling. Really, there have to be allergists in NYC that don't hate you. Hillary. Shut. Up. Make a point, it doesn't even have to be true, hit him over his orange head with it, then move on. DON'T go 'splainin, to try and please me, 'cause I don't care about details. This is a TV debate, NOT a collegiate debate. Jeez, isn't there someone in the campaign (I'm talkin' to you, Mark Cuban) that can tell Hills that professors don't win elections, celebrities do. It infuriates me. No one, and I mean even those who hate her, will deny that she's not super smart. But she's trying to be that know-it-all kid you didn't like in high school. We didn't like her then. We still don't like her now. And now she's rich. Ugh.

Donald Trump redefines gross. There's no way he should be President. He doesn't appear to be too smart, and to make matters worse he doesn't even seem like he's trying to learn. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and if you don't recall my prior Barry Switzer quote, it refers to being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple. Guilty on all counts. So why is he still here? Here are the minor reasons. Like him or (more likely) hate him, you FEEL something for him, and that counts for something. He engages (and enrages) people, hence we care. Next, his simply amazing unpredictability careens between revolting verbal diarrhea one day, to succinct, cut to the chase comments that distill a complex issue into a concise sound bite. It's not NPR, but hardly anyone listens to NPR. Get it?

No, the big reason he's still around is that she's simply a flawed candidate. The only reason she's around is that 1) she cheated Bernie in the primary, and 2) she has all the money. Much of America is desperate for change. How desperate? Donald Trump desperate, that's how much. No, she's not trusted. No, she's not liked. No, she doesn't really care about the poor and downtrodden. But she knows the status quo, and how the Washington game is played. She's vanilla, and not even French Vanilla. As a country we may not do much better, but we're unlikely to do much worse. It's not flashy, but it's steady.

But how many folks are out there that hope for more? Maybe you worked for Carrier. Maybe you are in the mining industry (fracking, coal, you name it). Maybe you're the millennial barista working at Starbucks that Hillary was talking about during the fundraiser at George Clooney's house. Maybe you got health insurance through Obamacare and you've just learned your policy either got cancelled or your premiums will increase by 50% next year. Maybe you're willing to roll the dice.

As I finish this post CNN's post debate poll called Hillary the winner, 57% to 34%. If you want to believe that, it's called confirmation bias. Look it up. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is stealing a line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Not dead yet.


Can it get any uglier. Don't count it out. Well, another month or so of blogging, thanks for reading! Good night.

If a Tree Falls in the Forest... a VP Debate recap

Full disclosure. I fell asleep during the post-debate spinfest last night; it was that boring and predictable. So the following thoughts, as usual, are mostly my own, but if they sound like you've heard them before maybe I was channeling CNN whilst my eyes were shut.

I'd venture to bet that this may have been the most-viewed VP debate in history. Total viewership may even hit 4 digits. Maybe.

Mike Pence won the debate last night. The bar was low. Really low. Only three hurdles, he cleared them all, like an Olympic equestrian show jumper. Number one. Say at least one full sentence that doesn't include the faux-word "bigly". Two, don't get yourself dirty in the sandbox called "facts". Three, when in doubt, shut up. Like I said, he cleared those hurdles easily.

Surprisingly (to me), Tim Kaine underperformed, which as a net result puts another log in my "Clinton is running an awful campaign" fire, which was already burning brightly. His bar was similarly low, like Pence's, but it's my suspicion he was directed by the campaign to "zig", when he should have "zagged". After Hillary's solid performance at the first debate, Kaine could have calmly (didn't happen) and personably (smiling like Howdy Doody isn't enough) articulated what is (again, to me) a clearly more broadly appealing platform. But instead, they (the campaign) feel that doubling down on the "Trump is dangerous" attack line is the way to a Democratic victory next month. For their sake I hope so, 'cause history may not look fondly on a Presidential candidate that loses to Donald Trump. Ultimately, like Wells Fargo or Donald Trump's taxes, the ball rolls from the top, and nobody rich goes to jail. I think that the root of all I don't like about how the Clinton campaign has been run comes from the very top itself, Hillary. I think she has the impression is that people won't like her enough to vote for her, hence the strategy of just savaging her opponent. That's a strategic choice, so I'll respect that even if I disagree.

My fave part of the debate was the last, the discussion about abortion rights. Not because abortion is my "fave", but because it gave both candidates a comfortable topic (really) on which they could articulate, eloquently even, their positions, however nuanced. For a topic that's such a "line in the sand" for many, discussing it comprehensively is an under appreciated skill that both Kaine and Pence handled very well. Without reading too much into it (hah, too late!), on that topic alone I have a solid amount of respect for both of them, even with their disparate positions, because I actually trust that they believe what they're saying. Heck, I'd venture if the election were held today either of them would beat the tops of the respective tickets. Easily. But wake up and smell the fetid reality.

On that sour milk note I'll sign off. Only a month to go, vote early and often, and thanks for reading.

Doing What It Takes To Win

Full disclosure. I feel the frequent need to recap where I stand this election season. I'm an open Bernie supporter, otherwise I consider myself an independent. So there. The context may or may not be important.

If I were writing this post Wednesday, in the aftermath of the first Presidential debate, and the day after the Donald Trump vs. Miss Universe dust up, I'd be writing from a completely different perspective. Because on Wednesday, after what seemed like an unrehearsed and unhinged ("bigly"?) debate performance, doubled down by Trump's subsequent attacks on the former Miss Universe now employed by Team Clinton, I was pretty confident that finally, finally Donald's 15 minutes/weeks/months of fame were in the last call stage.



La Donna E Mobile. Woman is fickle. Actually, I'm referring to me, not Hillary. I just love this song (it's from Rigoletto - Verdi). The tangential reference to being fickle is that, in the 48 hours between Wednesday and Friday, I went from thinking "this race is (effectively) over, let's move on to something interesting" to "Whoa. Wait a minute". So what happened (to me)? Read on.

I spent too much time Wednesday trying to understand how someone so undisciplined and seemingly unaware could have gotten this far, to the doorstep of the Presidency? Along the way laying to waste upteen other professional hacks that have spent their careers and millions of their supporters shekels grasping for the brass ring. The more common descriptors for the Donald have seemed to me inadequate in fully capturing, concisely, what exactly it is that makes him so...yucky. Then it hit me (figuratively, not "literally", as the cool kids say). Donald Trump is dumb. Not dumb as in uneducated, him being the "Wharton School of Business" alumnus (I'm sure Penn hides under the table whenever that's mentioned). Dumb, as in a utter lack of awareness, of self-consciousness, of perceptions of others, of social norms and cultural standards, you name it, he doesn't have it. Unless you include bravado. He has that in excess.

"Dumb Donald Trump" was my theme heading into the weekend's blogging, and I was mentally building my case Friday when serendipity intervened and I happened to hear a clip on the radio of Trump during a deposition, where he was answering questions about his speeches lambasting Mexicans as illegals and criminals. The deposition Donald Trump was so different from Presidential candidate Donald Trump that it would have made a great episode of Star Trek, when aliens inhabit the body of Captain Kirk and his personality becomes someone else's. Then it struck me (again, figuratively). "Am I being played?" by Donald J. Trump, star of The Apprentice and king of reality TV? Could the Donald, in fact, be the next B-list Republican actor to become President? Maybe...

So this week's blog is supposed to be about "what does Donald/Hillary need to do now to win?". Let's start with Trump first, building on my budding "he's an actor" theory. It'll be brief. Win or lose, it's absolutely all in for the Trumpster. If he loses, it's 100% due to his own unfiltered choices. But if he wins... he did it a la Frank Sinatra, "My Way".



How 'bout Hill? Similarly easy, but even easier after you've watched the skewering she got from Kate McKinnon during this skit on SNL this weekend. Hillary has just one month in which to get voters, any voters, to like her JUST a little. Just. A. Little. Not a lot, just a little. Can't say it enough. Ms. Clinton, do something, almost anything, that IS spontaneous. Not "planned spontaneous", because, as Ms. McKinnon so deftly points out, people will know. Which people? Everyone. May I make a suggestion? Next time you're in New York, take your grandchild to the park. If you can't sincerely enjoy being with your grandkid for a short photo op you simply don't deserve to be President, and I'm likely to vote for Trump out of spite. "I don't want to make my family a part of this campaign?" Shut up, you're lying again. Just do it. You're welcome.

Look at Hell tonight, it may have frozen over, because I'm close to agreeing with Michael Moore.



Sorry to close with a warning, but if you believe in global climate change, then you should take to heart Mr. Moore's dire prediction. Running on the current platform, as the Clinton campaign has done, that "Donald Trump is a crazy guy with crazy ideas and the wrong temperament", gets a lot weaker in the next few weeks if some alternate-universe Donald Trump begins to show up that isn't as crazy, who doesn't have crazy ideas, and isn't the racist misogynist he plays on TV. Now that would be scary, just in time for Halloween. In short, Hillary, give me the reason. You've got a month. Don't blow it.

Round One - The Debate Recap

It's not over 'til it's over - Yogi Berra

Full disclosure. One of my goals with the blog has been to present a perspective that you wouldn't find on another venue, but NOT to be contrarian just to be a jerk. (may be an oxymoron, but whatever). So in this version of the debate recap, I'm going to address tangentially via a stroll thru memory lane the adventures of past presidential candidates and how their paths may have relevance today. So buckle up and read on.

New York, 1987. I was there. New York, 2016. I'm going back. Same city, almost 30 years difference. And what a difference it is. The New York of 1987 was the city of film noir. Dark, seedy, dangerous. I was there for a wedding in Brooklyn. I remember going to Times Square. A giant strip club that smelled of urine. Great. "Kinky Boots"? "Hamilton"? No. When I go there this fall, what do I expect? Disney. Great food. An outdoor farmer's market in Brooklyn. Taking public transportation to and from our midtown hotel. The question is, how this this come about? My answer isn't as granular as "stop and frisk", because frankly, my dear, I don't really know. But I'm confident in my answer: Rudolph Giuliani. You may disagree, but good luck with that. For better or for worse, I think Rudy singularly owns credit for the New York City we get to enjoy today. Did he do everything right? Hell, did he even do everything legally? Beats me. But if you're an "end justifies the means" person, he was the mover that did the shaking. Now he's part of the Trump "brain trust" (I had to put that in there, just 'cause writing "brain trust" and "Trump" in the same sentence is so damn funny). But, liberal friends, if you want a smaller scale version of same, I could almost as easily make the same argument for my hometown mayor, Richard J. Daley. He did a good job too. Impressions matter.

What's my point? If the perception (never mind the reality) that things are really bad, people will vote for change. And important historical note here. Rudy won on his second try versus Mayor Dinkins. Apparently things didn't suck enough in 1989. Perception matters.

Olympian. Rhodes Scholar. Professional athlete. NBA Champion. Presidential loser. In the 2000 campaign, my main man was Bill Bradley, the smartest candidate to run for office in my voting lifetime thus far. He lost in the primary to the man who invented the internet. Look no further for evidence that politics is stupid. No more glaring example on how Hillary can still lose this election. Intelligence may not matter. It hasn't in the past.

Fast forward to today. I continue to think this election will ultimately come down to themes, not details. The answer to the distilled question, "do you think we (America) are headed in the right direction?" will be the driving determinant of the majority of voters. How voters feel as we move into November will determine the outcome of the race. I don't have any doubt it's neck and neck right now.

I called yesterday's debate a draw. Each candidate played to type, and it's my guess that, regardless of spin, it probably didn't move the needle much either way. But I really doubt anyone switched sides.

That's my brief, hope you enjoyed it. Already I've moved onto the next topic, which will be full of intrigue, "what can/should Donald/Hillary do to win more voters that they aren't doing now?" It'll be fun. Thanks for reading!

Do. Or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

Vote. Or don't vote. It's your choice. - :-)

Full disclosure. Despite the almost daily "whoa" generated by this "it'll never get crazier than this" Presidential campaign, I've been suffering from a touch of campaign fatigue as of late. Yes, even me. Hillary's health. Donald's taxes. Yea, whatever. But the election is less than 50 days away, so my seventh inning stretch is over, it's almost over, and yes, still anything can happen. Sorry about that.

In the aftermath of yet another rash of police-related shootings of black men, together with the Colin Kaepernick stand/sit/kneel thing regarding the National Anthem, I've been trying to put together a coherent construct as reconcile the polling data that says that 'mericans are overall pessimistic with the direction the country is heading, despite the claims on the part of the government and economists that we're in the midst of a steady economic recovery. So here's my take, and it's a rift on an eight year old refrain: hope. You have it or you don't. The protesters in Charlotte, North Carolina? Nope. Little or no hope there, and Charlotte is a "real" city, meaning it has a thriving (for some) economy (financial services, insurance, etc...), but somehow I get the strong impression that the folks starting fires and turning over cars aren't part of that "new economy". No hope there. For that matter, not votes either. So why not protest in the only means available, i.e. rioting? (this is not meant to condone the action, just an explanation). On the flip side, those with varying degrees of hope. I'd call them "voters" or "potential voters", who, for right or wrong, think that one candidate/party or another may help their individual case in the coming years. Along these lines, who's been more effective in reaching those on the lower rungs of the hope ladder? You have to give the nod to Trump, who, for better or worse, "gets it" as to why this group, disaffected but still with a sliver of hope potential voters, might want to give PT Barnum a shot at the big house. Economic insecurity is much closer to home for this group, thus the success of an anti-immigrant, anti-free trade message. Even more, despite claims by the chattering class to the contrary, Trump's broad statement to the black community, "what do you have to lose?", may be more resonant than the press gives him credit for. So why doesn't Trump's shtick work on anyone with a college education? Because there's a difference in "eating/not eating" and "am I going to get a 7% or 9% return on my investments". A big difference. I'm going to return to this theme, "what's going on with voters", in a later post, but overall it's too depressing to just dump it in a single post. So we'll move on.

Without a lot of gloating, many of the "truisms" I claimed when I started the blog are not only true, but are being reinforced daily. Number one: winning is the only thing that matters. Not truth, not policy, not super PACs. Just getting enough electoral votes to claim the prize. Number two: there are no rules. Ever hear the joke about the two things that can't be found with a (male) Senator? A live boy or a dead girl. That doesn't even apply here. Anything goes. Number three: it's NEVER about policy. If a candidate (or their talking head) starts complaining that we're not talking about policy, you know it's because it's an issue the candidate has already lost. Sorry, just being honest here. Think of it as a divining rod for the next 50 days, because it's going to be a rough ride.

Why isn't Hillary winning by 50 points? Secretary Clinton asked exactly this rhetorical question herself, and for a change I may be actually inclined to believe she doesn't know the answer. No, she isn't winning by 50, but she may still be winning. Selectively. Regardless, today isn't November 4th, so going back to our baseball theme, there are still a few innings left for both sides. But back to the initial question, why isn't Hillary, full of substance and money, running the table? I think there are a multitude of factors, but let's just hit the highlights, shall we? College-educated women. They hate Trump. And how many women are out there, actually? I actually tried to do some research on answering this question, 'cause the data is out there, but it's sorted a bit differently and I couldn't get the sort to do gender and educational level sans age. Best I could find is that ~ 43% of women over 18 vote, and 30% of women over the age of 25 have at least a Bachelor's degree. Another way of looking at it is that 70% of women over 25 do NOT have a Bachelor's degree. Same data, viewed differently. Next, at this point of the campaign it's abundantly clear that the level of engagement on the Democratic side is markedly less than it has been in the past two elections, and I'd be lying if I saw that changing markedly before November. I think a big part of that is attributable to a collective "meh" among traditional Dem voting blocks, African-Americans and Hispanics, who I suspect are simply less inspired by Hillary than they were for Obama, for whatever reason. If this translates into lower voter turnout, which I think is a given, look out.

Counterpoint. How on Earth is Trump still in this thing? With no demonstrable grasp on domestic, foreign, or monetary policy, Dirty Harry goes to Washington is a story line that continues to sell, just like the Fast and Furious movie series. How many movies can they continue to make about cars, guns, girls, and explosions? Whatever that number is, we're not there yet. Elitists had already been calling Trump supporters "low information" voters, but as I've observed in the past the monster truck show typically outsells the symphony. You may not like it, but like humidity, I don't like it either, but the weather doesn't care what I think. Similarly, the Don's fast and loose with facts and memory haven't seemed to hurt him in the least, which may be attributable to an utter lack of conviction to any ideals. He says what he thinks (at that very moment) and moves on. Contradiction isn't a word in his vocabulary. Too many syllables. I suppose he can screw up the debates, but even if he sucks it up, rest assured he'll be acting like he won an Oscar afterwards. And more than that, people will probably believe him. And like it or not, that's a unique gift.

Ode to the undecided voter. If you are delusional enough to be undecided at this party, you are alone. Two of the most polarizing candidates ever, you either love them or hate them. But, gentle reader, you don't have to vote for them. Either of them. I've enjoyed the "end of humanity" arguments from both sides (in truth, mostly from the Dems) that the other side is the devil incarnate, but as I opined on Facebook the other day, I firmly believe voting is an individual right, and an individual choice, INCLUDING the choice NOT to vote. Your reasons are your reasons, no justification necessary. Remember, I'm a Bernie guy. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if my guy were the candidate, or so I think. LIbertarian? Green? Sure, go ahead. It's your right. My only ask is that you simply consider the decision, but it's the right of eligible voters to choose. And that includes choosing not to take the "lesser evil".

So what to expect from here to the finish line? Well, the debates are coming up, and peering into my crystal ball I could foresee Hillary flexing her intellect and trying to goad Trump into venturing onto her wonk policy turf, where she clearly has an upper hand. Trump, on the other hand, will play defense, and look for broad topics (defense, immigration) where he can reach into his satchel of quips and substance-less pronouncements, much to the chagrin of Hillary, who would not surprise me if she calls out this tactic, unfortunately to her detriment as it further reinforces her as the shrill know-it-all from high school you simply didn't like. Further things that would worry me are if Hillary launches into a lame "personal" anecdote about someone she met along the campaign trail that views Clinton as her personal savior. It will come across as false because it probably is. Trump's liability arises whenever he says something that might even remotely be fact-checked. Even the weather. If he keeps with the monosyllables like "great", "big", and "best", he'll probably make it through just fine.

Sorry, rambling blog this time, just catching up. I'm aiming to either live-blog or post-blog the debate, so stay tuned and thanks for reading!

"S" is the letter of this election

Full disclosure. "D" was the first letter that crossed my mind then thinking about this edition of the blog. "D" for "disgusted", as many Americans find the Presidential choices this year lacking. But that's not covering new ground, and stating the obvious isn't my intent, nor is it in any way interesting. What's been puzzling me, however, is precisely why people are disgusted with the choices at hand. Read on, gentle people. The letter of this election is "S".



Yes, Hillary Clinton is a liar, and yes, it's not illegal, despite the best efforts of Congress to try and shame her and trick her into falling on some moral sword. Ain't gonna happen, and quite honestly, Americans are quite comfortable with liars, and many have been elected President. Hypocrites, on the other hand, are looked upon poorly, but that is a topic for another post. Establishing the lying part as an accepted baseline, what is it then about Secy. Clinton that is so damning that this is still a contest and not a foregone conclusion? THAT'S the real mystery of this election.

I don't think it's the dishonesty, the blind ambition, the pantsuits, the shrieking, or even the first husband, that keeps a good many Americans from jumping on the Hillary train. No folks, I think the best "S" word that comes to mind when I try and think of why Ms. Clinton is political Kryptonite is "smug". She's smug. Her staff are smug. Her campaign is, in a nutshell, smug. And very few things in American life piss people off more than smug. Smug is the rich kid in elementary school that acted like they were better than you because they (thought) they had more money. Smug is the frat boy or sorority girl who thought that the Greek letters on their button-down shirts or plastered across their Soul-cycled butts made them somehow more entitled to a lofty place in society. Smug is this kid:



A friend reminded me of a great quote the other day, attributed to Barry Switzer (of Oklahoma football fame), "Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple". I mention the quote as a reference to being smug, not Ms. Clinton (IMO), as I personally think she's worked her ass off to get where she has, and to imply that she was given this or that is simply wrong.

Smug in the Clinton campaign is wrapped in the entitlement mentality that somehow, given her history of being first lady, Senator, Secy. of State, and fundraiser for the Clinton Foundation, that the Presidency is somehow "owed" her. But more importantly, that each and every step and action she's taken along this path is justified because it gets her to the goal she "deserves". Steps like the e-mail server, overnights the Lincoln bedroom, Whitewater, foreign government donations to the Clinton Foundation. The problem is, smug doesn't live in a vacuum. Smug needs people to react. Those who buy into the premise that the "smugger", in this case Hillary, is in fact deserving of the attitude, versus those who think, "who the hell does she think she is". I do acknowledge some weirdness in this analysis, because plenty of examples abound of successful people who are not viewed as smug. Usain Bolt comes to mind. World's fastest man, and damn proud of it.



People LOVE him, myself included. He's fun. Hillary? Not so fun. Methinks she presents too much of a "woe is me" persona (eg. "flat broke") that simply rubs many the wrong way. Like anyone worth less than combined estimated $110 million net worth for Bill and Hill. If that's "flat broke", what does that make everyone else? Maybe, like the guy who was turned into a newt in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "I got better". Better indeed.


So if Hillary is smug, what does that make the Donald? So many possibilities, but searching for a single word to encapsulate what makes Trump unsuitable for so many people. It ISN'T that he's a boor, a bigot, and chauvinist, or a blowhard (although some may argue). No, if you don't think Trump's qualified, I think the reason to look elsewhere is because he's shallow. Shallow of thought, shallow of mind, shallow of...pretty much everything requiring analytical thought for more than the blink of an eye. Beautiful women? Check. Rich folks? Check. Dictators? Check. "Skin deep" is the perfect description. He sees what's on the surface, makes a complete judgement, moves on. So why is that so wrong? Well, because sometimes...that IS wrong. "Don't judge a book by it's cover" isn't an enduring saying for nothing. I'd venture to guess that Trump is more shallow than most Americans. But not all.

The "smug vs. shallow" aspect of this election feeds into my thoughts on where the status of the election is this week. Since the conventions, polling has shows Clinton persistently ahead of Trump in pretty much all metrics (popular vote, electoral college, Pokemon Go characters, you name it), Hillary has smartly played the political version of Dean Smith's "four corners offense", ie. run out the clock. Boring, but effective. And legal (snark). It's premised upon you being in the lead (hint, she is), and not giving your opponent any opportunity to score against you in the closing minutes. Ultimately there are no lingering style points in an election, it's win or lose, everything else is gravy. Following this premise I do express some surprise that the Clinton campaign has been so gung-ho about the Presidential debates. I presume this is because they see it as a chip shot, a face to face between the "most prepared candidate for President EVER" versus "The Apprentice". I would be concerned. Overconfidence CAN be a weakness.



But at this point it's still likely to be a successful strategy. Trump winning (and not with the Charlie Sheen sense of irony), requires something that simply hasn't happened before in a modern election...well, except for eight years ago. IMO for the Donald to win the Oval Office he has to do with disaffected previous non-voters what then-Senator Barack Obama did with young people. Get them out to vote. MUCH easier said than done, but maybe not impossible. These so-called "low information" voters may not be the social-media/internet/new economy part of the population, and thus may not be as readily accessible as a simple Tweet or Facebook post can reach. In a perverse way of life coming full-circle, it is possible that the most efficient means of reaching the potential (but not yet voting) Trump supporter is simple old-fashioned "snail mail" direct mail marketing, the very means by which Karl Rove (remember him?) made his fortune. That'd be weird.

But don't be mistaken, Hillary still has a formidable lead, but not insurmountable for the Donald. And, as has been oft said this season, anything can happen. And will. As usual, thanks for reading, I'll try and keep it interesting. There's lots of material here.

Presidential Candidates as Olympians

Full disclosure. I'm quite confident (there's a pun here, hang on) that most candidates, past and present, for the POTUS have thought of themselves as "Olympian" as some point in their narcissistic careers, but the funnier question (well, I'm trying) is, which Olympian?

It never occurred to me until yesterday that the Summer Olympics and the Presidential races follow the same every-four-years timeline, but then again I may just be ignorant. But the similarities abound. The continuing search for unique storylines, the Hollywood dramatization of otherwise-insignificant life events, the scandal and intrigue, the Olympics and Politics are a match made in reality TV heaven. But who plays whom?

Lets start at the top.

Donald Trump. Ryan Lochte.



Each raises the same question. "What the hell are they thinking!?". Enough said.


Hillary Clinton. Aly Raisman. With all due apologies to Ms. Raisman.



Immensely capable. Due to cruel twists (haha, I'm full of puns this week) of fate relegated to the sidekick shadows of charismatic leading men (Bill, Barack) and ladies (Simone, Gabby). A half-smile barely concealing near unbridled contempt at the fate of having to live in the same era as natural celebrities.



Ted Cruz. Chad le Clos. Neither an American. (Mr. le Clos only because Snidely Whiplash wasn't an Olympian as far as I can tell).



Two guys most Americans love to hate. Either could be the villain in the next installment of the "Die Hard" franchise.


Bernie Sanders. Andre De Grasse (the Canadian sprinter).

Of note was that Bernie was, in fact, a heck of a runner in his youth. But, like Mr. De Grasse, this time around Bernie has the misfortune of running, not against Mr. Bolt, but Big Money. It was never gonna happen. Maybe next time kid.

Usain Bolt. Simone Biles. Katy Ledecky. No Presidential candidates whatsoever.

Try as candidates might, there's really no comparing them to folks like this, who combine natural talents, hard work, perseverance, and reset the playing field. I didn't include Michael Phelps in this group as, while he's the most-decorated Olympian ever, his races still resemble races, while for these three, when they compete they're really in a "league of their own". The only other (relatively) current athlete that comes to mind is Tiger Woods. At his prime, it was him and history. Like it is for these three.

Politics is really a team sport, which is to say nowadays it's really a corporate sport. Political "superstars" are really a creation of good marketing and maybe a sprinkling of luck. Sports tries to do the same as well, but despite the packaged efforts of NBC and other others that seek to benefit from the perform, sometimes the awesome in sports come shining through. And that's a good thing. Hope springs eternal. Even in politics.



That's it for the Olympics edition! We'll get back to the mud-slinging next week. Thanks for reading!

Globalization is the Real Issue This Election

Full disclosure: the blog is an equal-opportunity offender, and I'm envisioning this post will be no different. The only conspiracy theory I don't plan to cover is the location where Jimmy Hoffa is buried (because everyone KNOWS he's beneath Giants Stadium, duh). So sit back and enjoy the rant.

Here's some quotes from the last week as background to this week's connect-the-dots argument:

 "An American election is a global election" - Francois Hollande, President of France

 "the TPP, which grew from a small FTA... will be a free trade agreement encompassing 40 percent of the world's population and one-third of the world's GDP." - Prime Minister Lee of Singapore

 "So I think there is a powerful economic case (for the TPP), just a basic bread-and-butter case to be made about why this is good for Americans workers and good for American exports and ultimately good for American wages, if it’s structured properly" (emphasis added by your blogger) - President Obama

Let's dispense with the more common single-issues voters typically cite as their decision maker on whom to vote for. Pro-life/Pro-choice, GOP/Democrat. Gun rights, same. But the quotes above, all of which came this week, really focused on an issue that has lurked in the background of this election season, but in reality is the "real" single issue that is defining the crazy behind all that's happened so far, on both sides, of the campaign isle, globalization. And I'm going to make the argument that, if you want to be a single-issue voter, THIS is the issue that matters.  

Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology.

It's on the internet, so it must be true. But why is it THE issue now, and why should you even care? Because, gentle reader(s) (NB, I'm getting cocky, as I see from stats I have more than a single reader), I think that the answer to the question "are YOU for globalization?" is the IED that has wreaked havoc upon this particular election season, and for good reason. So do I think globalization is good or bad? It's my blog, so I don't feel I can be neutral, so overall, today in mid-2016, I'd have to vote "bad" for America (as well as 'Merica). Here's my shtick.

The first of many quasi-relevant digressions. I must admit, I've never been a "comic book" guy, but I do admire how writers can use comics (same holds true for science fiction. hell, it even holds true for Shakespeare) to illustrate (haha pun) ideas and concepts that on the face of it would be otherwise summarily rejected by the society of the time (now, middle ages, etc...). Being somewhat a populist at heart, my personal leanings in comics runs towards Bugs Bunny and Phineas and Ferb, but for many who love The Simpsons I think you know what I'm getting at. It's poking fun at institutions in a socially-acceptable way. But it can also be a way of addressing fears and concerns as well, as the picture above is intended. This is the "world security council" from Marvel's The Avengers. A shadowy (again, pun intended) and unelected group of "world leaders" who basically can pull the strings of worldwide events. Problem is, I happen to think this is reality, now. And it's called Globalization. And it frankly scares the crap out of me.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/08/true-cost-rio-summer-olympics-zika

So why might I think globalization is bad? I believe there's an enormous and significant gap between the ideal and reality of globalization, and the price of falling short of the ideal has been disastrous. Think about jumping from rooftop to rooftop, like the cool kids do in some James Bond movie. Awesome if you make it, sucks if you don't. I think globalization is like that, and I'll give some examples that President Obama won't. 

Let's see, where's an example of a worldwide, big-budget undertaking that has the world behind it and promises to benefit everyone. Give up? Turn on the TV tonight and watch the opening of the Rio Olympics. Estimates of cost (per the Google) have it at about 12 billion (that's billion with a "B"), of which the state of Rio is on the hook for about 4.6 billion. That's actually a bargain compared to recent Olympics past, but still a fair chunk of change. So what? Well, without citing numbers ('cause there aren't any), how much of that 12 billion dollars do you think might be benefiting (directly or indirectly) the quarter of the population (growing) that live in Rio's favelas (slums)? My guess is "uh, not too much". But before you ask the logical question, "where did all that money go?" DON'T, please don't, say that it "disappeared". Look, please use common sense, 12 billion dollars does not simply go "poof" and disappear. Ever. Even if you generously subtract the costs of the venue and infrastructure construction for the Olympics, there's a shit ton of money that went to the Rio "organizers", all of whom I'm sure weren't missing meals in the first place. 12 billion that didn't go to feed, house, or educate the poor, medicines for the sick, stopping Zika. Who are the organizers? Hence the comparison to the Avengers "world security council". They're not Presidents, they're not tabloid fodder. They're the financiers, the money-movers, the connected folk that make countries work. I submit to you that first, they don't work for everyone, and second, they do. Not. Care. And they're not only coming to a country near you, they're already here. We just don't widely appreciate it, 'cause we're too busy worrying about who's going to win this stupid election. 

So how am I going to make this post and equal-opportunity offender? Globalization isn't a Republican or a Democratic issue, it's an ESTABLISHMENT issue. The Koch brothers, Warren Buffett, George Soros. They're just globalization's poster boys, I'm confident there are many more I've never even heard of. But I'll tell you the only name I'm confident is NOT on that list. Donald Trump. Mr. anti-establishment. And I'm equally confident that he knows it, his kids know it, and it probably pisses them off. Persona non-grata in the globalization cool kids club. That anyone in real power would let the boorish self-proclaimed billionaire into this club is laughable, and that's simply not gonna happen. Hillary, on the other hand? It's not called the Clinton Global Initiative for nothing. Team Clinton is like The Bachelorette for world leaders, a trashy pop-culture audition for the group that meets at Davos to "solve the world's problems" with big thinkers like Bono and that young crook lady from Theranos. All talk, lot's of money, little to show for it. Again, when am I going to offend the GOP? Like right now, 'cause it's not just Billary and the Dems. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the devil-child of the Republicans, not the Democrats, and Paul Ryan/Mitch McConnell are all over it. It's bread and butter Chamber of Commerce stuff; bigger, better, cheaper, outsourced. The Republicans version of lipstick on this pig is called "trickle down economics". Remember that? Yes, I'm an equal-opportunity offender. Trickle-down is the "lite" version of globalization, and TPP is simply this year's tagline. Another piece of evidence that we already are a country at the behest of the moneyed few? Citizen's United. Buying elections since 1998.

So if you're not mad at me yet, keep reading, I'll keep trying. So, you may argue, "Rio's uniquely screwed-up, that can't happen here." Well...no. Lake Placid, home of the 1980 "miracle on ice" is STILL paying off their Olympic debt. Sochi? Screwed. Athens? Worse than screwed (insert expletive starting with "F" here). The quote regarding insanity attributed to Albert Einstein is appropriate here, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Pouring billions of government money in on top to fellow billionaires and expecting it to somehow trickle down and improve the lives of the millions living in poverty (and worse) hasn't happened, and won't happen. Ever. Christ said, "you'll always have the poor". Damned if he wasn't right. Again.

But would a President Trump, with his opposition to TPP, change things? Simple answer, no. But I think he would be a speed bump, and not an express lane, which we get with Hillary. Yea yea yea, Hillary's against the TPP too. C'mon, I know I don't have any readers that gullible. Both she and her main man Tim Kaine were FOR TPP before they were against it (that John Kerry-ism never gets old, like "Lambert Field". Hilarious.). Nah, the real cajones in the anti-TPP fight were Bernie (my guy) and to a slightly lesser extent Liz Warren. Neither of whom are being invited to Davos anytime soon.

So how do I think globalization adversely affect 'Merica, and what can be done about it? Globalization affects economic classes differently, and while I don't think it's ill-effects are necessarily intended, they're present nonetheless, like lung cancer and smoking. You really can't separate them out. In 'Merica, anyone with a substantive investment in the stock market (either in an individual account, pension, IRA, whatever), is likely to at least have the opportunity to benefit from globalization. I figure that accounts for all white collar folk and above, and a fair number of blue collar workers that have retirement options (a shrinking number), and organized labor groups like teachers and public employees. Losers in the globalization movement: everyone else, and unfortunately, despite labor reports to the contrary, that number is growing. Geek NB, government employment statistics only include those actively looking for work. Folks who've simply "dropped out" of looking don't get counted. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Okay, big finish. Where does this lead? Unabated, globalization may lead to the establishment of a chronically dependent poor, a class of Americans with no legitimate shot at upward mobility. They may be employed, but will only make enough to subsist, and perhaps in the worst case only subsist with government support. This doesn't portend well for their kids either. Above that level is what I'm going to label the "churn", where there's social movement in a range above poverty and up to relative wealth, where hard work and smarts can move you up or down, but with an invisible ceiling hiding the attic of the uber-rich who set global economic policy, wage wars of convenience, and generally set the policies that govern our everyday lives. So what's wrong with that, you ask? Well, call it what you want, just don't call it Democracy. The quintessential articulation of the "American Dream", where with hard work and perseverance, ANYONE has a chance to better their future and the future of their children, is sometimes referred to in other less fortunate countries as "hope". I worry that losing hope may be the price we as a country and as a society will ultimately pay to have cheap goods from Amazon. I happen to think that's too high a price to pay.

Postscript to the Democratic Convention

Full disclosure. Despite working over the past several years to cultivate a more accepting and tolerant persona (HT #1 to my friend JL), I'll fully admit that I'm writing this post while angry. Why, may you ask? Read on...

I'm currently watching the Democratic Convention, which is on it's last legs days. Just waiting for the only part that matters, the speech by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. She has a high bar that has only been made higher over the past two weeks, strangely enough not only by last week's GOP convention, but by the earlier events of this week's convention. I'm going to briefly aire my griefs regarding the serious miscarriage of justice in what was supposed to be a Hillary love-fest, but instead became a "please vote for me" pander-fest. It's so sad, because as yucky as a candidate as Goldman Sachs is, the DNC could have put better makeup on that candidate, but instead settled for a reactionary stew of disjointed themes and simply bad choices.

Let's start with the good. Michelle Obama. Good isn't adequate, she rocked her Monday speech. MONDAY! What, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, did you think she was going to suck? Probably the best speech that no one ever saw live, I strongly suspect this may end up being the political equivalent, if Hillary wins, of the 1980 Winter Olympic hockey game when the US beat the Russians. Everyone likes to say "I remember watching the game at..." when in fact it was broadcast at something like 2 a.m., and really, who was going to watch the 'mericans get creamed by the Russian Army? So might it be with Michelle's speech. But in a nutshell, here's why it rocked. One, she's a natural, engaging speaker. Great delivery. Two, even a dolt like me can talk at length about my kids. Hell, I can talk at length about anything, but that's for another post. So FLOTUS talking about her girls, and how electing the first woman President would impact them and girls everywhere, that works, regardless of party. If the Dems have any common sense they should already be making the commercial. Equally as importantly, it was a welcome distraction from the fiasco that was the Wikileaks e-mail release, the DNC rigging the primary contest for Hillary, and ultimately the Debbie Wasserman Schultz resignation, a day late and a dollar shy. BAD people, BAD. The Clintons aren't loyal (not like crazy Donald, or crazy W, for that matter) so why on Earth the delay? DWS should have been booked back to Miami the moment those e-mails became public fodder. So again, thank Michelle Obama for saving the entire train wreck of a convention from being even worse.

Day 2, Bill Clinton. "Who" asks the voting public under the age of 30? Oh yea, the President who was having an affair with an intern. Yea, the guy who's married to Hillary. If you heard his Tuesday speech, my apologies. Contrary to the public beatification by most of the TV commentators, I thought his speech was bad, bordering on awful. It was long, it was meandering (even the commentators agreed), and if you weren't already being paid to listen and comment, you turned onto a rerun of Game of Thrones long long before Bill got to anything worth remembering. So "no", I did not think it was a good or a helpful speech.

Day 3 is called "moving day" at the Masters golf tournament, and the convention followed that game plan, forgetting that the convention is nothing like a golf tournament. Wednesday brought out the big guns, Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama, to shill for the Hill. Biden went first, and reminded the crowd that they nominated the wrong Democrat, again. (Full disclosure #2, after Bernie, I'm a Biden guy. Better a gaffe-prone yet honest politician than the one who buys the election and has her own home server). The talking heads said that Biden offers appeal to the "blue collar, working class whites" that Hillary needs. Except that Joe ain't running for President, idiots, the darling of Wall Street is. Biden's speech was sincere, moving, and on point, and furthered my anger at the election that could have been, where any other Democrat would have crushed the Donald like an orange ant. But hey, I'm not a Democrat. They can drive they're own bus into the creek. Next was President Obama, who reminded the loyal audience why they loved him in the first place, and "if you love me, vote for Hillary to preserve my legacy". He can really give a speech, but when the content is sketchy... that was the case here. But no doubt both speakers delivered a welcome level of emotion previously displayed only by the disgruntled Bernie supporters in the crowd. But, unlike the Masters, the winner needs to close on the last day, and that's the predicament where Hillary finds herself. Where all the lights, in the aftermath of a build up of solid moving speeches by Michelle, Joe, and POTUS, are shining exclusively on her, Hillary needs to deliver the goods, or else. But as they say, no guts, no glory. We'll see how she handles it, but don't doubt for a moment that it isn't important.

So, does me being angry and negative over a crap Democratic convention mean I'm voting for the xenophobic demagogue? No, but it makes me think he's got a more legitimate shot (than last week) of being our next President, if simply because the Dems put on a crap convention. It could have been so much better. Even with Hillary.

This blog isn't intended to lead you to vote one way or another, or for that matter, vote at all (HT #2, DH, but I'm not done yet). I'm using the blog as a soapbox to present an alternative take on what you see and read in the popular press and media regarding this wild election season. Not necessarily contrarian, but definitely not beholden to any political party or ideology. So if my opinionated musings lead you to vote the Donald, good for you. Likewise, if you choose Goldman Sachs, that's cool as well. But at least you'll have read an opinion that isn't just red or blue. Or even purple, for that matter. Back to you, previous non-voter DH. Not voting IS as much a choice as voting for one or another (or Green party, or Libertarian, or whatever). I don't believe that "not voting for "blank" is a vote for "blank #2". That's crap. Contrarian voting is rare at best, and there's no evidence I can cite that showed it ever making a difference. My advice is that you think about it, and do what's right for you. (started and ended the post with another HT to JL, that's symmetry for 'ya). Hillary's just coming on now, after a mediocre (sorry) intro by her daughter Chelsea. I'm getting a drink refill.

Thanks as always for reading!

Last Call at the OK Corral

Full disclosure. This GOP Convention has been a bit like one too many times through the line at Old Country Buffet. Can't resist, sometimes it's just too tempting.

Take home message. He might win.

A quick business school lesson about strategy is relevant here. A yugge part of a good strategy is deciding what you DON'T want to do, so you don't waste time/money/effort that is better spent elsewhere. Did you know, gentle reader, that the percentage of the voting electorate that is white, non-Hispanic is about 70%? (Pew Research). Let's cut to the chase. Trump simply wants a larger share of this largest share. That's it. Simple. There's no Plan B. If you look at everything Trump and the GOP says and does between now and November through this very simple prism, then you'll have 20/20 insight into their game plan. It's really that simple. Everything else is just static. Trump's path to success is getting a larger share of the white vote.


As promised, I watched much of this week's GOP convention so you wouldn't have to, and before the paint is even dry on Donald Trump's acceptance speech, I've already sorted out the wheat from the chaff of the convention, and as they have as a saying somewhere, we'll see if this dog will hunt.

Day 1 highlights. Or highlight, 'cause all everyone will remember from day 1 is Melania Trump successfully combining her Derek Zoolander persona with Michelle Obama's words for a great speech that unfortunately was already given eight years ago. Sure, there were other speakers, but c'mon, they were nothing but filler, and if you're interested, they included a guy from Duck Dynasty, a few Navy Seals (one was the guy they did the "Lone Survivor" movie about), the long-winded general who was on the VP list, and well after bedtime Joni Ernst, the freshman Senator from Iowa famous for making a TV commercial about castrating pigs. Their speeches should have been plagiarized, because they were boring. The prototypical convention fare.

Day 2 was highlighted, correctly, with a speech by Donald Trump, Jr., who honestly did a pretty good job representing the Rich Kids of Instagram. It was catnip for the red-state crowd, which was the only intended audience, as it was Day 2, with the only other audience on TV being losers like yours truly. I think Chris Christie spoke also, but it was typical Christie, fire and brimstone and he's not the VP, so merely an afterthought.

Day 3 was entertaining as it was Ted Cruz's Waterloo. Political junkie or not, a train wreck is a train wreck, and in his case, intentionally stirring up hatred of himself among those who are probably his only potentially sympathetic group outside of blood relatives is just plain stupid, but I'm no fan. His completely self-absorbed death wish was jaw-dropping, and like a blue moon (the first one being Melania's cribbed speech on day one), it sucked all the oxygen away from Mike Pence's otherwise milquetoast introductory VP speech. By the way, Governor Pence is the VP nominee. You can forget about him again.

All of this brings us to day 4 and the only part of any consequence (claimed by none other than David Plouffe, Obama's 2008 campaign manager, who was in attendance in Cleveland), Donald Trump's acceptance speech. Yes, Ivanka rocked the house, but with all due respect, she had already set a high bar for herself; she cleared it in style. The Don is speaking right now as I type. I'm not really listening because it's nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times before. I'm really listening for style and tone, and I get it. Turning the populist dial to a thousand, subtly turn down the not-too-subtle misogyny and bigotry (but just a little), and there you have the campaign game plan on to November. Talk about message discipline. Make America Great Again. Repeat over and over until November. That's it. Crazy thing is, it might be enough.

Notes for the Clinton campaign. Please Hillary, don't listen to folks like your man Van Jones (talking head on CNN) who is constantly complaining about the lack of a policy specifics being presented during the GOP convention. It's funny watching his fellow commentators look at him like he either had too little sleep or too much coffee, because that's simply crazy talk from a guy who probably TIVOs C-SPAN. Hillary, do not talk policy, as much as you might want to, 'cause that's the stuff of NyQuil. Say what you want, but the GOP Convention has been nothing but must-see TV for political junkies, a NASCAR race where there's a crash EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. It's politics in the Octagon. Talking about policy is basically saying "please turn the channel and see if there's a rerun of The Walking Dead". Anything will Trump (pun intended) a discussion of policy. Don't take the bait.

Go 'Merica's advice to Clinton-world on the eve of the Democratic Convention. Less Clinton (Hillary), more Clooney (George). You own Hollywood, you own Silicon Valley, you own Wall Street. Make them work for you, 'cause they have almost as much at stake as you do. My suggestion for the Dems. Target the young voter. They mostly hate Trump. They're underrepresented in the polls. They're perhaps a little more resistant to populist rhetoric, as most haven't had firsthand experience in having their entry level jobs moved overseas. Yet. So yes, get the cool kids, the popular kids, the rich kids. The Kanyes. The Kims. The Swiftees (well, that's not gonna happen). Hell, get the Black Eyed Peas back together again. Whatever you do, don't talk about Brexit, don't talk monetary policy. Please please please. Don't take that bait.

Bears repeating, I don't have an active bet in this game. I'm a Bernie guy, so basically I put my money on a horse that lost. Now I'm just handicapping the contest ahead. And the GOP, despite the naysayers, put on a strong opening salvo. I'll be back next week with how the Clintons respond. Hold on and stay tuned.

Last notes. Haters of all persuasions, don't be discouraged. Presidents are term-limited.