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!
