Full disclosure. I called this. Seriously. In the run up to the "surprise" vote by Great Britain to give the stiff middle finger to the EU, the smart money, ie the stock market, gained steadily in the days preceding the vote, in anticipation of a vote to "stay" in the EU. But little noticed was an observation (can't remember by who or whom, but maybe it was 538, the geek stats blog, now part of ESPN) that, in prior British elections of recent years, the conservative position had underpolled by several points the actual results, and the polling heading into the Brexit vote had it a very close call with the "stay in" group leading by a hair. But the show's over, we can all move on. But can we...
Okay, so what American's didn't care about the vote? Well, most Americans, frankly. Yea, the stock market took a deep dive on Friday, when the news broke, but it's been pretty lackluster recently so what's a little more crap news. Also, if you're one of the roughly 53% of Americans (53%, ALL CAPS) who have NO money in the market (in any form, stocks, IRAs, retirement accounts, etc...nada, zilch, zero), then the fall in the market is like the opening of Independence Day; Resurgence. Uneventful. So... if more than half of Americans are not directly affected by the stock market, by virtue of not owning stocks, should the non-binding referendum of a foreign country (yes, folks, dem Brits are foreigners) be of any concern? Hint: the answer is "Brexit? WTF?".
If you've watched the news over the weekend, it would have seemed like the Cavs won the NBA championship and... wait, the Cavs did win the NBA championship, so unexpected things do happen. So it is with Brexit. The news media is falling all over themselves about how they were wrong, and now the world is going to end, when in fact, NO ONE knows exactly, or even inexactly, what will be the consequences of Britain leaving the EU. Except that it'll be bad, because that's what the media, the same folks who just got this prediction wrong, have said it'll be bad, just because. Uh, okay.
There's one fact I can see here that's not speculation but real. Just about 52% of voting Britons said "hasta la vista, baby" a la Arnold Schwarzenneger (multicultural pun intended) to EU membership, and that's a real number, not a prediction. Honest folks can argue all they want about "I intended to vote" or "I didn't mean to vote that way" but vote they did, and the number's the number. But it's much much more fun to try and answer the question, "why?" One candid observation, if you've caught any of the US news coverage. Almost universally the pundits all believe that Britain leaving the EU is "bad", and thus all the commentary has focused on "how bad?". I have yet to see a single article that is even lukewarm about the Brexit, which begs the question, "what were the 52% thinking?". If you're reading along stay tuned while I pivot this back to the US Presidential elections.
Common to the commentary I've been reading and watching since the Brexit vote is the strong opinion that the "leave" voters made a choice that was not in their self-interests, i.e. they're either stupid, uninformed, or a combination of both. I don't know how that plays on the other side of the pond, but here in 'merica, calling or implying someone is either stupid, uninformed, or a combination of both isn't viewed as the makings of polite conversation. The word that comes to my mind is "patronizing". NOW here's my pivot to the general election.
A big reason for starting this seldom-read blog was the impression that both sides of the aisle really have, in the pursuit of votes, cast the opposing side as either low-brow cretins or hi-brow elitists, with little ground for a balanced discussion of issues for middle-brow non-Vegans. There are clearly drawn lines; gun rights, abortion rights, "sanctity of marriage" rights, LGBGT rights, etc... and most of the time the talk focuses on demonizing the other side. So why did 52% of the land of Shakespeare vote to leave, can there be that many stupid people? Hell, this is the land of James Bond, Aston Martin, the Spice Girls! Let's try an example. Imagine an older middle-class worker in England, getting by but certainly not getting rich, and he/she's kinda worried about the prospect that their employer, in the interest of cost-cutting, might think to replace you with a lower-wage worker, perhaps even with an immigrant, who might work for even less? Let's make the scenario more interesting by saying you have 2 young kids. Are you wrong in voting for a measure that you might think will help your own personal economy? Then, on the flip side, you have the Prime Minister, lobbying for the "stay" side, who comes from the upper crust of British society, generationally wealthy, who's saying that staying part of the EU is important in an increasingly "globalized" world. What the hell does "globalized" even mean? I think, for many of the "leave" voters, globalized means watching your jobs go everywhere global except for the UK. I also think it's safe to say that, even with resigning on Friday, David Cameron (he's the Prime Minister), and his family won't be missing too many meals on account of his new unemployment.
Now...bring that scenario back to this side of the pond. Let's have our prototypical American middle class worker driving a truck for an coal mining company in West Virginia, or maybe even building air conditioners for Carrier in Indiana. There's one Presidential candidate has promised to "put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business", while in the other scenario that worker has just seen his/her job go to Mexico. And Brexit can't happen here? "Of course not!" says the know-all media, 'cause they got England oh so right. We'll see... And one more thing. Find me a working class 'merican who can give a speech for even 1/10th of $225k. Yup, Hillary's just like us. She feels our pain. Yes, the other guy is a probably-rich boor with bad hair and bad manners, who plays every card in the book like it's a... wait for it... Trump card. But at this point, he's in it to win it, and contrary to the media and the polls, I think he still can. I'm definitely NOT saying that this is a good thing, just that it's a real thing.
To wrap things up this week, my VP prediction market continues to be solid. Tim Kaine, as predicted weeks ago!, is unofficially now the front-runner position on the Dem side, but in weird counter-intuition, having his name bandied about this early before the convention has me thinking that Clinton-world is floating his name as a trial balloon, to see how the fish (media) are biting. They still have time to change the bait. On the Trump side, jettisoning Cory Lewandowski, while likely a good move, REALLY ignores the large orange elephant in the room. I still love my stealth pick, Petraeus, and still think he needs a good exit strategy before he signs on. I think the talk of Newt Gingrich as VP has to rank right up there with Mike Huckabee as guys with really no other job prospects who desperately need work. If they can't work a deal with Petraeus they might have to settle for Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, who would likely say "yes" but will equally likely bring to the table "0" additional GOP votes.
It's certainly not boring. Thanks for reading!
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Crtl-Alt-Delete
Crtl-Alt-Delete. Resetting the campaigns for the general election edition.
Full disclosure. Attentive readers may have wondered "WTF happened, did he get tired of blogging after a month?" Of course not, that's like asking, "do you have an opinion?"! Hell yes, that's why I blog! But in fact, I've been working on and off the past few weeks peddling an op-ed about a pet interest that's only tangentially related to politics (well, that's kinda a lie, it's really political, duh), and for many "real" publications they preclude prior publication for submissions, which apparently includes low-volume blogs. But if that rant doesn't get published, it's show up here eventually. Now on with the show.
Well it's low speed to November for both sides of the aisle. The Donald seemingly has winner's remorse over crushing the rest of the gun-lovin' haters that make up the GOP, and has trying valiantly to alienate whatever remaining blocks of voters that haven't already jumped ship or have become Libertarians (you'll have to Google it). Hillary, on the other hand, having culminated the 8 year stealth installment purchase of what used to be known as the Democratic Party, still has John the Baptist, i.e. Bernie, to deal with all the way to the Convention, yelling, like a voice in the dessert, "Repent! Make straight the way of voters, not the Superdelegates!". Wrapping up that religious imagery, I only hope Bill doesn't play the role of Herodias, because, with all due respect, I can't picture Chelsea as Salome. But let's move on.
As of this Father's Day weekend the campaign hopes of the Donald look relatively dim. Every, and I mean every, non-conspiracy based news outlet says the race is essentially over, that Hillary's superior organization, ground game, and, oh yes, money, have her going LeBron on Donald's Draymond Green. But (and obviously I'm full of obtuse analogies this week), like our big fella from Michigan State, Donald seems quite willing to hit below the belt, and as I said in an earlier post, the rules of politics are "there are no rules, only winners and losers". So Goldman Sachs, Whitewater, Bill's girlfriends, Hillary's girlfriends, the "Clinton Global Initiative" i.e. home ATM, they're all on the Don's playlist. That is, when Trump isn't trying to build a wall around the home in Indiana where the judge in his Trump University lawsuit was born. But, as untold numbers of GOP also-rans might attest to, underestimating Donald Trump is seemingly not a great campaign strategy. He continues to avoid discussing policy like he has an allergy to words with three syllables. I can actually understand and support this campaign tactic, and, gentle reader, I'm here to lift the basket off the light and 'splain it all to 'ya.
The Trump campaign when it's at it's Charlie Sheen "winning" best is as an insurgent, Rebel Alliance/Rogue One war. Hit, tweet, move on. A war fought each and every day that lasts only as long as the news cycle, then start anew. Don't get bogged down in details. Or facts, for that matter, 'cause IT DOESN'T MATTER. If polls have shown anything abundantly clear, it's that voters (and not just Trump supporters, I'm talking you limo liberals too!) do. not. care. about. facts. Their respective candidate lying or misrepresenting or flat out fabricating, it's all fine if it's OUR candidate. You want a non-Trump example? Try "bullets over Bosnia". Here's a self-test. If you've ever been in a situation where someone might be firing REAL bullets at you (I have not), I think I'd not confuse that with a child in a babushka handing me a bouquet. Just sayin'. My bigger question regarding this insurgent strategy is how the Don expands his voters beyond those who think the X-Files are real. I think he benefits with a pivot back to how the economy has left behind yugge swaths of America. That may gain votes, but ultimately that still might not be enough.
Hillary is the Democratic nominee, indictment or not. If the Stanford rapist (sorry, let's be more accurate, sexual abuser, my apologies) can get 6 months, no one can think that Secy. Clinton will get anything more than a "yes, but" from the Inspector General or the FBI. But we can still dream, can't we? The Goldman Sachs Global Initiative is a locomotive of Wall Street and special interests that has everything to gain with a Clinton presidency, and it's so close they can taste the Lincoln bedroom (again). Debbie Wasserman Schultz did her duty like any first stage booster on the space shuttle, time to jettison her off to the CGI where she can draw a salary to just keep quiet. From Hollywood to the Hamptons, the 0.01 percenters are readying to party like it's 1999, when coincidentally (RIP Prince) another Clinton was in the White House. Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you", so Hillary won't lose any sleep helping fulfill those words of the Gospel. From the stat line, it's incredibly hard to see how she can lose in November. But I type this post knowing there's an NBA game seven tomorrow. So as Yogi Berra said, "it's never over 'til it's over". True dat.
So what can happen between now and November to change the existing trajectory of the campaigns? If you can imagine it, it could happen. Certainly. We reviewed potential VP picks the last post, and if you believe the press my suggestion of Bernie for VP seems to not have been heeded by the Clintons (no surprise). And while I think Sen. Warren would be a great, outside of the box, pick, Hillary isn't running an outside of the box campaign. I think there's plenty of concern, warranted, that Warren could outshine Hillary, and that simply won't do. It brings Tim Kaine back on the list (he never left), and keeps Julian Castro in the wings (but I still doubt it). On the Trump side, my "no way" candidate, Condi Rice, isn't even going to the convention, so I'll say I called that one (it was easy, really). My top tier choice, IMO, is still very much in the running, precisely because he's not been discussed widely. Gen. Petraeus (US Army, ret.) is still in my number one slot on the GOP side. My crystal ball says the only calculus from the Petraeus side is a discussion, as befits a general, regarding a reasonable exit strategy if the ticket should really implode. But in his shoes, think of the upside. The chance to be VP to a President with no discernible political bent except the need to be popular. It's about as blank slate as you could imagine.
I'm going to close this edition with some brief observations regarding the tragic shootings in Orlando, and the political ramifications of that event on this election cycle. The NRA vs. gun control fight was on a less than simmer until this all went down, and it didn't take an act of Congress (pun intended) for everyone who makes a living off of voters to want a piece of the tragic action, for as Winston Churchill wryly observed, "never let a good crisis go to waste". On the GOP side, it's all ISIS, all the time, as if by Scientology brain waves they got into the messed up head of the shooter to incite him to grab a set of steak knifes and... on yea, the semi-automatic assault rifle with the high-capacity magazine. But that's infringing on his Second Amendment rights. Uh...sure. On the other side, the President, in his eloquent ('cause he's always eloquent) comments to the survivors and families of victims, that "this isn't political'. Yes, Mr. President, it's all political, even you. While I find it breathtaking the degree of fear and intimidation wielded by the NRA in the hearts and wallets of the GOP, I'm almost equally disheartened by the speed in which most politicians will simply put this episode in the "Columbine, Newtown, etc..." file folder of "good sound bites" for future reference. Yes, I'm finishing on a pessimistic note this week, but not to despair, because as a democracy, we still do vote (well, maybe 15% of us), and thus have our say. It's my lingering concern that, 15% or not, we really do get what we want, we just may not like it when it happens.
As usual, thanks for joining me for the ride. It won't be over until Beyonce sings at the inauguration. Stay safe out there!
Full disclosure. Attentive readers may have wondered "WTF happened, did he get tired of blogging after a month?" Of course not, that's like asking, "do you have an opinion?"! Hell yes, that's why I blog! But in fact, I've been working on and off the past few weeks peddling an op-ed about a pet interest that's only tangentially related to politics (well, that's kinda a lie, it's really political, duh), and for many "real" publications they preclude prior publication for submissions, which apparently includes low-volume blogs. But if that rant doesn't get published, it's show up here eventually. Now on with the show.
Well it's low speed to November for both sides of the aisle. The Donald seemingly has winner's remorse over crushing the rest of the gun-lovin' haters that make up the GOP, and has trying valiantly to alienate whatever remaining blocks of voters that haven't already jumped ship or have become Libertarians (you'll have to Google it). Hillary, on the other hand, having culminated the 8 year stealth installment purchase of what used to be known as the Democratic Party, still has John the Baptist, i.e. Bernie, to deal with all the way to the Convention, yelling, like a voice in the dessert, "Repent! Make straight the way of voters, not the Superdelegates!". Wrapping up that religious imagery, I only hope Bill doesn't play the role of Herodias, because, with all due respect, I can't picture Chelsea as Salome. But let's move on.
As of this Father's Day weekend the campaign hopes of the Donald look relatively dim. Every, and I mean every, non-conspiracy based news outlet says the race is essentially over, that Hillary's superior organization, ground game, and, oh yes, money, have her going LeBron on Donald's Draymond Green. But (and obviously I'm full of obtuse analogies this week), like our big fella from Michigan State, Donald seems quite willing to hit below the belt, and as I said in an earlier post, the rules of politics are "there are no rules, only winners and losers". So Goldman Sachs, Whitewater, Bill's girlfriends, Hillary's girlfriends, the "Clinton Global Initiative" i.e. home ATM, they're all on the Don's playlist. That is, when Trump isn't trying to build a wall around the home in Indiana where the judge in his Trump University lawsuit was born. But, as untold numbers of GOP also-rans might attest to, underestimating Donald Trump is seemingly not a great campaign strategy. He continues to avoid discussing policy like he has an allergy to words with three syllables. I can actually understand and support this campaign tactic, and, gentle reader, I'm here to lift the basket off the light and 'splain it all to 'ya.
The Trump campaign when it's at it's Charlie Sheen "winning" best is as an insurgent, Rebel Alliance/Rogue One war. Hit, tweet, move on. A war fought each and every day that lasts only as long as the news cycle, then start anew. Don't get bogged down in details. Or facts, for that matter, 'cause IT DOESN'T MATTER. If polls have shown anything abundantly clear, it's that voters (and not just Trump supporters, I'm talking you limo liberals too!) do. not. care. about. facts. Their respective candidate lying or misrepresenting or flat out fabricating, it's all fine if it's OUR candidate. You want a non-Trump example? Try "bullets over Bosnia". Here's a self-test. If you've ever been in a situation where someone might be firing REAL bullets at you (I have not), I think I'd not confuse that with a child in a babushka handing me a bouquet. Just sayin'. My bigger question regarding this insurgent strategy is how the Don expands his voters beyond those who think the X-Files are real. I think he benefits with a pivot back to how the economy has left behind yugge swaths of America. That may gain votes, but ultimately that still might not be enough.
Hillary is the Democratic nominee, indictment or not. If the Stanford rapist (sorry, let's be more accurate, sexual abuser, my apologies) can get 6 months, no one can think that Secy. Clinton will get anything more than a "yes, but" from the Inspector General or the FBI. But we can still dream, can't we? The Goldman Sachs Global Initiative is a locomotive of Wall Street and special interests that has everything to gain with a Clinton presidency, and it's so close they can taste the Lincoln bedroom (again). Debbie Wasserman Schultz did her duty like any first stage booster on the space shuttle, time to jettison her off to the CGI where she can draw a salary to just keep quiet. From Hollywood to the Hamptons, the 0.01 percenters are readying to party like it's 1999, when coincidentally (RIP Prince) another Clinton was in the White House. Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you", so Hillary won't lose any sleep helping fulfill those words of the Gospel. From the stat line, it's incredibly hard to see how she can lose in November. But I type this post knowing there's an NBA game seven tomorrow. So as Yogi Berra said, "it's never over 'til it's over". True dat.
So what can happen between now and November to change the existing trajectory of the campaigns? If you can imagine it, it could happen. Certainly. We reviewed potential VP picks the last post, and if you believe the press my suggestion of Bernie for VP seems to not have been heeded by the Clintons (no surprise). And while I think Sen. Warren would be a great, outside of the box, pick, Hillary isn't running an outside of the box campaign. I think there's plenty of concern, warranted, that Warren could outshine Hillary, and that simply won't do. It brings Tim Kaine back on the list (he never left), and keeps Julian Castro in the wings (but I still doubt it). On the Trump side, my "no way" candidate, Condi Rice, isn't even going to the convention, so I'll say I called that one (it was easy, really). My top tier choice, IMO, is still very much in the running, precisely because he's not been discussed widely. Gen. Petraeus (US Army, ret.) is still in my number one slot on the GOP side. My crystal ball says the only calculus from the Petraeus side is a discussion, as befits a general, regarding a reasonable exit strategy if the ticket should really implode. But in his shoes, think of the upside. The chance to be VP to a President with no discernible political bent except the need to be popular. It's about as blank slate as you could imagine.
I'm going to close this edition with some brief observations regarding the tragic shootings in Orlando, and the political ramifications of that event on this election cycle. The NRA vs. gun control fight was on a less than simmer until this all went down, and it didn't take an act of Congress (pun intended) for everyone who makes a living off of voters to want a piece of the tragic action, for as Winston Churchill wryly observed, "never let a good crisis go to waste". On the GOP side, it's all ISIS, all the time, as if by Scientology brain waves they got into the messed up head of the shooter to incite him to grab a set of steak knifes and... on yea, the semi-automatic assault rifle with the high-capacity magazine. But that's infringing on his Second Amendment rights. Uh...sure. On the other side, the President, in his eloquent ('cause he's always eloquent) comments to the survivors and families of victims, that "this isn't political'. Yes, Mr. President, it's all political, even you. While I find it breathtaking the degree of fear and intimidation wielded by the NRA in the hearts and wallets of the GOP, I'm almost equally disheartened by the speed in which most politicians will simply put this episode in the "Columbine, Newtown, etc..." file folder of "good sound bites" for future reference. Yes, I'm finishing on a pessimistic note this week, but not to despair, because as a democracy, we still do vote (well, maybe 15% of us), and thus have our say. It's my lingering concern that, 15% or not, we really do get what we want, we just may not like it when it happens.
As usual, thanks for joining me for the ride. It won't be over until Beyonce sings at the inauguration. Stay safe out there!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)