A Thought for Hillary

I was struck by this in an Atlantic piece on Biden:

"It’s better to be a mystery [like Biden is to many] than to be like Hillary Clinton, who faced what amounted to a 25-year negative-advertising campaign that left even sympathetic voters suspicious. Her 2016 word cloud was dominated by liar, criminal, and untrustworthy, with strong registering a bit too."

That seems to be the way she's remembered now. But it's wrong about the way she was regarded during her political career.  Wikipedia shows that she had 22 appearances topping the "most admired woman in America" list between 1948 and now, far more than anyone else.  (Ike and Obama each had 12 as the most admired man.)

Granted this just means that she had a plurality of strong supporters, but there were years in which her favorability was quite high.  What happened in 2015-16 was the Republican publicity machine tearing her down, aided by a "both sides" media world, eager to balance Trump's real faults with Hillary's supposed ones.

You can see I'm aggrieved here.  I won't say that Clinton was a good candidate nor that she didn't open the door to some of the attacks.  I will say she would have been an above-average president, not the total disaster of the man who beat her.

Why Farmers Went for Trump

Modern Farmer has a post listing five reasons.

I've lost my memory of how the "waters of the US" issue might relate to swampbuster rules.  I know NRCS, EPA, and Corps of Engineers all get involved.  I also remember in 1991 getting an earful in Kansas about SCS handling of sod/swamp. I assume that's still a sore spot.

Too Much Fear, Too Little Calm

My title could apply to many things, including the current agita over the Trump administration to be.

I want to note the election, specifically the lack of major problems at the polling place, as reported by this ProPublica blog post. All the fears of intimidation at the polls, etc. weren't borne out.  People have the ability to work themselves into a lather (a metaphor dating back to the horse age) over things which don't come true.

The reality is that Trump and his people will make mistakes, do some bad things, do some good things, and often kick the ball down the street.  They may well be as bad for the country as were Nixon and Reagan, but maybe not.  We'll see. 

Bitter Defeats: A Life Following Politics

Live long enough, and be into politics enough, and you'll have some bitter moments.  Two of mine:

• Hubert Humphrey was a leader in civil rights from the time he spoke to the 1948 national convention, passionately appealing for Democrats to end racial segregation.  (No, the only thing I remember from 1948 was the sound of Alben Barkley speaking--my interest in government and politics grew in following years.)  Humphrey was the standout liberal during the 50's and the author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 1965 was the best time to be a liberal, given the Dem's majorities and LBJ's mastery of Congress, even though it was also the year I got drafted.  In a just world Humphrey would have reaped the rewards of his endeavors by succeeding LBJ in 1968 by beating Tricky Dick Nixon and the demagogue George Wallace.  Alas, the world was not just.
• I remember listening to Ronald Reagan on radio during the 1964 campaign, speaking on behalf of Goldwater.  I think I turned him off, his assertions seemed so ill-founded, and his speaking seemed so glib.  I had problems taking him seriously even after he beat Pat Brown for governor of California, nearly beat President Ford for the 1976 nomination, and ran again for President on a platform of keeping the Panama Canal and rigid anti-communism. I knew he was a genial lightweight, who talked well but glibly and with no regard to factual accuracy.  I fastened on every straw in the wind to believe Carter would beat him as he deserved.  
• The deaths of JFK, MLK, and RFK.  We're lucky to have survived almost 50 years without more such killings.
• .I was disappointed by the results in other elections, notably 1988 and 2000, but as I grew older I began to have more perspective. But I haven't gained enough perspective to make 2016 less than bitter.

Why Rural Areas Went Trump

One factor I haven't seen mentioned (which was IIRC key to Truman's victory in 1948): bad economics for farmers.  Prices are down, land values are down.  For example, per bushel corn prices have declined from $6.89 to $3.61 in four years.

What If? Immigration First?

Matt Yglesias asks somewhere what would have been the result if Comey's letter had come out earlier and Trump's video had come out later?  The moral is the effect of contingency.

Along somewhat different lines, what would have happened had Obama opted to put immigration reform first, and health care second back in the first days of his presidency?  I could argue that there was a deal to be made on immigration (almost had one in the last year of GWBush's presidency) that would have reduced the heat the issue had this year.  If he'd then failed to pass Obamacare, the Tea Party uproar in 2010 might have been less effective, meaning less energy for the populist resentment this year.  And having passed immigration reform might have improved the Latino support for Clinton this year.

Of course, with all those what-ifs, Trump might not have become the nominee. 

The Hidden Toll of Gay Marriage

Does anyone remember it's been just a year and a half since same-sex marriage became legal nation-wide?  I didn't, and was surprised when I looked it up.

I may be the only one, but it seemed to me that the nation had quickly moved on to other things so issue quickly receded into the rear-view mirror.  Is it possible that the "elites" have assumed that relative silence (except over issuing marriage licenses, photography, baking) means the nation had accepted it? 

What if that assumption was wrong? Even though President-elect Trump didn't talk about it that I remember, and the Republican convention didn't make a big deal of it (not that I watched the speeches), perhaps one of the (many) reasons whites and some African-Americans went more strongly for Trump than Clinton is resentment that the rules were imposed from the top, by the lawyers and the Supreme Court? 

I Was Wrong

See this, and should retire as a predictor but I'm still optimistic.

The Conservatives I Follow

I've three blogs I keep up with which are mostly conservative.  The Volokh Conspiracy is a bunch of law professors.  Powerline is four lawyers/scholars.  Ann Althouse is a law professor.  Althouse voted for Obama in 2008, don't think she revealed her choice in 2012, and is keeping quiet about her vote in 2016, though I'd say her posts tend to be pro-Trump and her readership definitely tilts to the right. (She tends to tease her views.)  Powerline contributors are torn, but my guess is they'll vote Trump or a write-in, never Clinton.  Orin Kerr at Volokh did an anonymous survey of contributors--only one voting for Trump, the rest for others.

Where I'm At: Optimistic

At noon on Election Day, I'm optimistic, both about the election and the country:

• I want and expect Clinton to win.
• Trump will concede, either graciously or at the behest of his family.
• If the Dems take the Senate, they'll still be at the mercy of their conservatives: Manchin and Donnelly. If they don't, I expect the remnants of the Gang of Eight (or was it Sixteen) to help pass legislation.  (Republicans don't have many running in 2018 so Senators won't be pulled to the right by primary fears.)
• Clinton will likely work from the center, both as a result of Congress being narrowly divided. She'll turn out to be a good president.

As always, I'd predict an extension of past trends (which is a sure way of being wrong--things stay the same until they don't)--growth in the economy, improvements in social trends (teen pregnancy down, crime low, lower obesity), and innovations which help and hurt (autonomous vehicles, health care innovations, etc.)

A Sixth Hack--Mess With GOTV

David Sanger at the Times has a piece on five possible hacks of the election process. All very good, but he misses what seems to me to be the most significant hack: messing with a party's "get out the vote" (GOTV) operation. Unlike most of the election operation, this seems to be centralized, so if there's one central database it's a high-reward target. Screw up the database and the GOTV effort is wasted. Barring that, do a denial of service attack, and you have a similar effect.

Stone the Rich Economist

N. Gregory Mankiw has a piece here--he paid $2500 apiece for "Hamilton" tickets in NY and is reasonably happy about it.  As a market economist he sees it in terms of supply and demand, mourning only that the creators of the show get only the benefit of the $500 face price.

What's interesting to me is the comments: the most "liked" comments are those trashing the rich plutocrat who can afford such a price.  I'm not sure whether that's coming from the presumably liberal readers of the NYTimes or from those who support Mr. Trump.  Probably the former, that would be more consistent with the liberal ethos.  But it's a little straw in the wind which shows the support Clinton can get for "soaking the rich".

Drum's Crystal Ball

Kevin Drum had a crystal ball post--how will Paul Ryan and Clinton work together after the election. He got a lot of comments.

All I know is it's going to be interesting.  One problem for the Democrats is the number of senators up for reelection in 2018, including a number from red states (Manchin, Heidtkamp, etc.).  So there's a strategic choice in the Senate: either go for broke on liberal issues (assuming you can get the Dems to buy it) and sacrifice your majority in  2018; or try to preserve your majority in 2018 by dodging the more controversial issues, at the risk of aggravating the left and laying the ground for a challenge in 2020.

Clinton and the Modern Age

Some sentences from Garrett Graff's writeup at Politico after reading the last batch of FBI reports of interviews of the Clinton people:

 "Together, the documents, technically known as Form 302s, depict less a sinister and carefully calculated effort to avoid transparency than a busy and uninterested executive who shows little comfort with even the basics of technology, working with a small, harried inner circle of aides inside a bureaucracy where the IT and classification systems haven’t caught up with how business is conducted in the digital age. Reading the FBI’s interviews, Clinton’s team hardly seems organized enough to mount any sort of sinister cover-up. There’s scant oversight of the way Clinton communicated, and little thought given to how her files might be preserved for posterity—MacBook laptops with outdated archives are FedExed across the country, cutting-edge iPads are discarded quickly and BlackBerry devices are rejected for being “too heavy” as staff scrambled to cater to Clinton’s whims."

 Secretary Powell tried to bring State into the modern age:

Powell invested in 44,000 new computers, giving every employee a computer on the desk, and monitored the adoption of the new systems as he traveled by conducting unofficial audits, sitting down at embassies overseas to check his own email and attempting to log into his account. As he told FBI agents, “This action allowed Powell to gauge if the embassy staff was maintaining and using their computers.” He also regularly checked the department’s internal “Country Notes” on the intranet to see if missions overseas were keeping their details up to date.  

 I come away from the long article, thinking more highly of Powell as a bureaucrat--at least he knew from his Army days about the need for solid routines and the likelihood that things will be Fubar.

As for Clinton, since I have a close relation who's never used the IPad Air she received, I shouldn't complain much about her technological incapacity.  I think the facts in the article fully support Comey's decision.  However, I'm bothered by the idea that nobody in Clinton's circle of advisers and support staff, except for the IT guy, seems really to have worried about the nitty-gritty.  It's a prevalent disease of big-shots, IMHO, but I hope as President she finds a Sherman Adams*.

* Ike's chief of staff who made the trains run on time.

Trump's Economist

Prof. Don Boudreaux, of George Mason U. blogs at Cafe Hayek. He seems to be a classical economist, i.e., someone with whom I would agree only once in a blue moon.  Frankly, I don't understand the issue with the Trump economic plan, but I find this pussyfooting around without saying what you really think most distressing: (from an "open letter" to Trump's economist):

"Tipped off by Scott Sumner, I read Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro’s analysis of Trump’s economic plan.  Words fail me.  Nearly everything Navarro writes about trade is not only wrong, but foolish.  A good economist setting out to write a spoof of bad trade analysis could not have done a better job of mimicking complete cluelessness about trade."

-

Questions for Clinton Which Won't Be Asked

What one thing did Bill do in the transition to the Presidency or in the organization of the executive branch which you will try to avoid?

Same question but with Obama?

Will you work with your Secretary of State as Bill did with Christopher, as Bill with Albright, or Obama with you?

Questions for Trump Which Won't Be Asked

The White House is smaller and less lavishly decorated than the homes you own and use now. Do you plan to live there when elected or in your homes or the Presidential suite in your DC hotel?

If you live at the White House will you redecorate?

Will your airplane become Air Force 1?  Will you continue to charge the Secret Service for their travel in it?

Do you intend to replace the White House staff with your personal employees?

Will you require the White House staff to sign the confidentiality agreements you require of your employees?

Will you protect the rights of whistle blowers?

Will you paint the White House gold?

Will you convert Camp David to a gold golf course?

Will you tell the IRS to end its audits of your tax returns and then promptly release them?

What arrangements will you make for Presidential records--will you continue to release records of visitors to the White House?

If I Were Clinton

I've never debated, but if I were the Democratic candidate in tonight's debate, I would counter Trump's lies very simply:

"that's wrong".   Repeat over and over as necessary.  Have your staff ready to post documentation on each time you say it.  Then segue into "What I would...(say, do, propose,).

Don't engage in factual disputes, focus on positive plans.

[updated: so much for my advice on debating.  :-( ]

Bambi's Mother Is Dangerous

I apologize, I sullied the reputation of the Internet for factual accuracy by my mistaken post the other day alleging that bees were the deadliest non-human animal in the US. It turns out that's wrong. Bees do kill many more people on average than terrorist (yearly average over the years since 2001).  But it turns out the true villain is that adorable, big-eyed denizen of the edge lands, whose population keeps growing: deer.  I hope the debaters tomorrow night will take a firm position with respect to this growing threat to the lives of our citizens.

Different Platforms

From a piece at  Monkey Cag:

The [Democratic] platform mentions whites only in the context of their greater wealth, lower arrest rates and lower job losses.
In contrast, the Republican platform never refers explicitly to Latinos or people of color, and refers to African Americans or Hispanics only once and then in the context of seeking to reduce federal expenditures on primary and secondary education. It refers to women only in the contexts of the military and the pro-life position on abortion. In short, the Democratic platform takes an implicitly negative position on the relative economic fortunes of white males, while the Republican platform takes a neutral one.