This post was supposed to be titled "What's Next?". While the answers to this question are now probably more important than ever, the first thing that comes to mind right now is "What Happened?"
While most analysts, pollsters, and political pundits are busy explaining why they were wrong predicting a vastly different outcome, some will suggest that there were indicators that Donald Trump winning the election, while surviving a brutal campaign, was not entirely unexpected. Some experts, perhaps afraid to end up on the wrong side of the prognosis, timidly cautioned not to forget what happened in the U.K. earlier this year when Britons were asked, in a referendum commonly referred to as "Brexit," whether or not to stay in the European Union. Polls massively predicted a "stay" vote, only to be stunned by a 52% to 48% defeat.
The similarities to what happened in our election are striking. Both countries, and for this matter most continental European countries as well, are experiencing a populist surge. While an increasing exhibition of populist anger has been recognized during election campaigns, the phenomenon infrequently developed into a predictable threat to real power. Because of labels like "ignorant" and "degenerate" the establishment attempted to attach to this group, a substantial number of these voters remained publicly silent about their intentions. In the U.S., as well as in Great Britain, this silent electorate produced largely unexpected election results.
We are engaged in a cultural civil war. A struggle between a mostly rural, blue collar, older, mostly white population segment which feels estranged from the social and demographic trends that are reshaping their country, against multi-cultural urbanites, social liberals, immigrants and minorities, supported by a status-quo elite structure that has ignored them. Populist demagogues across the spectrum successfully corral this sentiment, and provide simplistic answers to real problems. Instead of suggesting the workable solutions complicated challenges demand, they provide scapegoats like globalization, immigration, trade agreements, and government failure. "Let's Make America Great Again," in reality, becomes "Let's Make America White Again." Our election was about "restoration" against "transformation." It was not just about "change." For populists it was about turning the clock back to a more traditional time. The concerns about losing jobs and the elimination of entire industries is not just about losing income and obstructing a path to joining the middle class. It is about ending the progression of the social and demographic changes that threaten the identity of many lost in their own country.
Politicians leading this civil war view it as a revolutionary movement. Nigel Farage, head of the United Kingdom Independence Party, who led the campaign for Brexit, was energized by Donald Trump's electoral success, proclaiming: "The revolution continues!
So, what's next?
There will be plenty of time to assess the aftermath of the election when we move into 2017. We can only contemplate some of the following:
* The wall along our southern border could become a reality, even if Mexico won't pay for it.
* The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is on life support. The insurance of 20 million people could be at risk.
* The Trans Pacific Partnership treaty is dead.
* Judge Merrick Garland's elevation to the Supreme Court is dead.
* The Iran Agreement is in trouble. However, since this is a multi-lateral agreement, us pulling out won't kill it.
* NAFTA could be in trouble.
* Eleven million undocumented workers and three million American Muslims are worried about their future status, especially now that Steve Bannon, Executive Chairman of The Breitbart News, an explicitly racist organization, has become Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to the President-Elect.
* Impeachment of Hillary Clinton is now off the table. However, House Republicans are planning to "continue investigating her for years to come."
* Mike Pence won't be running for President in 2020.
* The Democratic Party is fielding calls to replace the Electoral College with a system using only the popular vote when selecting a President. This movement gained traction after the 2000 election, and since Clinton could well end up with 2 million more votes than Trump, the issue has again become popular.
A friend of mine composed a list of 123 promises candidate Trump made during the campaign. Supporters and opponents of the President Elect will surely maintain a running tab on what President Trump will actually follow thru on. As David Miliband, a British Labour Party politician, observed, when confronted with the Brexit vote in the U.K.: "Populism is popular until it gets elected - then it has to make decisions." The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Friday, November 4, 2016
THE END IS NEAR - 270 OR BUST!
It is (almost) all over but the crying, grumbling, whining, growling, or complaining, whichever verb you might select to express your sentiment if you end up having supported the losing side in this year's presidential election. It is fair to say that the entire world will be holding its collective breath in anticipation of the outcome. And even though we are only a few days away from what some would refer to as "Armageddon" - the final battle between the forces of good and evil - nobody predicts that the last days before November 8 will be uneventful.
With all the venomous rhetoric spewed throughout the campaign, what will happen after the election is finally over is still very much in question. Nevertheless, this is decision time, and we are compelled to do our civic duty. As Theodore Roosevelt aptly observed: "In any moment of decision, the best thing to do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing." Before we begin to express concerns about potential implications of the outcome of this election, we should focus on how that decision is actually reached.
Most of us are aware that the popular vote does not decide the election. We vote for electors who represent us in the Electoral College. The number of electors each state is allotted is equal to the number of members of Congress to which they are entitled. Combined, these amount to 538 electors. This means that the winner will need to collect 270 electoral votes to be elected President. Most states use a winner take all system. Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors by Congressional District. Once the votes are in, the Electoral College meets the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to officially verify the outcome. This year that will be December 19.
While all states participate in the election, the real battle takes place in so-called "battleground" or "toss-up" states. Democrats traditionally control the outcome on both coasts, with the possible exception of Florida, while Republicans have historically exerted more of a strangle-hold on the central and southern states. This year the dynamics could prove to be somewhat different. The Associated Press has rated 278 electoral votes to be safely Democratic. Their list of toss-ups include: North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Nevada and New Hampshire, totaling 72 electoral votes. The Republican nominee needs to win all of these to have a chance at reaching the 270 target. Other states that could be in play are Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and possibly even Arizona and Georgia, both traditional Republican strongholds. In Utah, which has traditionally voted safely Republican, a political unknown, Evan McMullin, could have a shot at winning that state's election. Another race to watch, if for no other reason than curiosity, is the Senate race in Louisiana, where ex KKK Grand Wizard David Duke is, again, attempting to get elected. An estimated 50 million plus votes will already have been cast before we get to November 8. A very sizable percentage, considering that we have 146 million registered voters, of which only 126 million voted in the 2012 election.
Aside from the selection of a new President, 469 congressional seats are up for election as well, 34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats. Republicans control 246 seats in the House of Representatives, while Democrats occupy 186. Three are vacant. To retain control of the House, the GOP can lose no more than 29 seats. The Cook Political Report has rated 57 seats as "competitive."
On the Senate side the battle for control is significantly tighter. If Clinton is elected, Democrats need to turn 4 Republican seats to get control of the Senate, 5 if Trumps gains the presidency. (Democratic VP candidate Tim Kane would hold the tie breaker in a Clinton administration.) Republican incumbents at risk are: Mark Kirk, Illinois; Ron Johnson, Wisconsin; Kelly Ayote, New Hampshire; Patrick Toomey, Pennsylvania; Rob Portman, Ohio; Marco Rubio, Florida; and the open seat in Indiana contested by Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Todd Young. In Nevada the seat being vacated by Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, could be in play for the GOP. Leaders in both parties consider the battle for control of the Senate almost as significant and consequential as the contest for the White House.
Local candidates, bundled with a myriad of initiatives, dot the ballots in every state. Proposals covering the death penalty, marijuana reform, gun control, tax proposals and others are presented in hundreds of ballot initiatives offered up in states across the country. Throughout the years some of these have been real odd-balls. It has not been unusual to find ballot measures like: "Should we prohibit toxic waste in our drinking water?" (1986); "Should a police officer get to walk his beat with a ventriloquist dummy?" (1993); "Should we give $1 million to one random voter?" (2006).Or, as we see on our California ballot this year: "Should porn actors be required to wear condoms?"
Donald Trump recently proclaimed: "We should just cancel the election and declare me the winner." Hillary Clinton's team seems to be confident that their candidate is the odds on favorite to be elected President. While confidence promotes optimism, we should keep in mind what happened during the 1948 election between President Truman and Governor Dewey. With Dewey well ahead in all the polls, the Chicago Daily Tribune jumped the gun and announced in its morning edition on November 3rd that "Dewey Defeats Truman," only to be confronted with what has been called "the greatest upset in our history." (Truman beat Dewey by 114 electoral votes.)
Most of us are aware that the popular vote does not decide the election. We vote for electors who represent us in the Electoral College. The number of electors each state is allotted is equal to the number of members of Congress to which they are entitled. Combined, these amount to 538 electors. This means that the winner will need to collect 270 electoral votes to be elected President. Most states use a winner take all system. Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors by Congressional District. Once the votes are in, the Electoral College meets the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to officially verify the outcome. This year that will be December 19.
While all states participate in the election, the real battle takes place in so-called "battleground" or "toss-up" states. Democrats traditionally control the outcome on both coasts, with the possible exception of Florida, while Republicans have historically exerted more of a strangle-hold on the central and southern states. This year the dynamics could prove to be somewhat different. The Associated Press has rated 278 electoral votes to be safely Democratic. Their list of toss-ups include: North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Nevada and New Hampshire, totaling 72 electoral votes. The Republican nominee needs to win all of these to have a chance at reaching the 270 target. Other states that could be in play are Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and possibly even Arizona and Georgia, both traditional Republican strongholds. In Utah, which has traditionally voted safely Republican, a political unknown, Evan McMullin, could have a shot at winning that state's election. Another race to watch, if for no other reason than curiosity, is the Senate race in Louisiana, where ex KKK Grand Wizard David Duke is, again, attempting to get elected. An estimated 50 million plus votes will already have been cast before we get to November 8. A very sizable percentage, considering that we have 146 million registered voters, of which only 126 million voted in the 2012 election.
Aside from the selection of a new President, 469 congressional seats are up for election as well, 34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats. Republicans control 246 seats in the House of Representatives, while Democrats occupy 186. Three are vacant. To retain control of the House, the GOP can lose no more than 29 seats. The Cook Political Report has rated 57 seats as "competitive."
On the Senate side the battle for control is significantly tighter. If Clinton is elected, Democrats need to turn 4 Republican seats to get control of the Senate, 5 if Trumps gains the presidency. (Democratic VP candidate Tim Kane would hold the tie breaker in a Clinton administration.) Republican incumbents at risk are: Mark Kirk, Illinois; Ron Johnson, Wisconsin; Kelly Ayote, New Hampshire; Patrick Toomey, Pennsylvania; Rob Portman, Ohio; Marco Rubio, Florida; and the open seat in Indiana contested by Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Todd Young. In Nevada the seat being vacated by Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, could be in play for the GOP. Leaders in both parties consider the battle for control of the Senate almost as significant and consequential as the contest for the White House.
Local candidates, bundled with a myriad of initiatives, dot the ballots in every state. Proposals covering the death penalty, marijuana reform, gun control, tax proposals and others are presented in hundreds of ballot initiatives offered up in states across the country. Throughout the years some of these have been real odd-balls. It has not been unusual to find ballot measures like: "Should we prohibit toxic waste in our drinking water?" (1986); "Should a police officer get to walk his beat with a ventriloquist dummy?" (1993); "Should we give $1 million to one random voter?" (2006).Or, as we see on our California ballot this year: "Should porn actors be required to wear condoms?"
Donald Trump recently proclaimed: "We should just cancel the election and declare me the winner." Hillary Clinton's team seems to be confident that their candidate is the odds on favorite to be elected President. While confidence promotes optimism, we should keep in mind what happened during the 1948 election between President Truman and Governor Dewey. With Dewey well ahead in all the polls, the Chicago Daily Tribune jumped the gun and announced in its morning edition on November 3rd that "Dewey Defeats Truman," only to be confronted with what has been called "the greatest upset in our history." (Truman beat Dewey by 114 electoral votes.)
Something to consider when we watch the returns coming in. It is not over until it actually is. What happens next will depend on who wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)