Empty Shoes and The Politics of Firearm Safety

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday July 11, 2018 · 9:55 AM PDT

2018/07/11 · 09:55

[Note: This is a dramatically expanded version of an editorial I published in the American Journal of Public Health earlier in July]

Inconsolable grief recently filled ten thousand square feet of US Capitol lawn. In that area, people had placed 7,000 pairs of empty shoes, each pair representing a child killed by a firearm in the approximately six years since the massacre at the elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut.¹ The recent mass murder in Parkland, Florida and the reactions to it, such as the deeply saddening display of those empty shoes on the Capitol lawn, bring our society’s response to firearm deaths into the heart of public discourse yet again.

Throughout this commentary, note that I use the term “firearm safety.” When pursuing legislation to reduce injuries from auto accidents, no one considered those efforts “car control” or “driver control.” Instead the focus was on “highway safety.” The same holds for other areas of injury prevention; airplane safety was not called “airplane control.” The primary issue in public health is always “safety,” not control. I follow that tradition here by discussing the public health challenge of enhancing firearm safety in our nation.

The phrase “gun control” is a deceptively misleading phrase too often used to describe the goal of firearm safety advocates. Control is a term that, thanks to the red-meat rhetoric and seemingly tireless efforts of the National Rifle Association, seems to carry with it implications of government overreach and overtones of the denial of citizens’ constitutionally protected rights. The term “gun violence,” which is sometime used, is inappropriate for this discussion in that it is less general than firearm safety, significantly downplaying the role of gun accidents and the large proportion of suicides involving firearms.

The Dimensions of the Firearm Safety Problem

Highway deaths have long been the leading cause of deaths from injury in America. But, by 2016, deaths due to firearms outnumbered highway deaths in 21 states and the District of Columbia.²During that same year, homicides and suicides (mostly by gun) ranked as the third or fourth most frequent causes of death for all those from one to 34 years of age. For those 35-44, they were the fourth and fifth leading cause of death.³

By the first 21 weeks of 2018, shootings, with death or injury, were spread across 23 schools in America.⁴ In addition, years ago America passed the point where gun deaths in this country since 1968 significantly outnumbered the total number of American soldiers who died in all the wars fought by this nation. The common claim is that the difference is roughly 200,000 more firearm deaths. Snopes’ review of the data indicates that claim is mostly true, though Snopes fact-checking indicates the figure may be closer to 100,000.⁵

What this discussion and Snopes’s review fail to recognize is that the meaningful difference is even greater. All 1.5 million deaths due to firearms since 1968 clearly resulted from a discharged firearm. But, military deaths include literally hundreds of thousands of deaths in our wars that involved not hostile forces but deadly microbes.

In the Civil War, the best estimate of military deaths is roughly 750,000 soldiers.⁵Those deaths constitute about one-half of all deaths of American combatants. But, five-eighths of combatants’ deaths (62.5%) in the Civil War resulted from disease.⁶ So, the meaningful difference between the number of soldiers who died since 1968 versus the number of firearm deaths in American for the same period is even more stark than those original claims. The difference is well over one-half million greater deaths from firearms in the USA in the last 50 years than from all deaths of military personnel since the beginning of the Revolutionary War in the last 18^th century.

The Asymmetric Political Battlefield

The struggle for firearm safety, like much of injury prevention, involves a type of “asymmetric political warfare.” The dominant belligerent is a large industry represented by multiple organizations with considerable financial resources and some good measure of popular support, a portion of which is quite uncompromising. This powerful industry, whose products place the population’s health at risk, faces a less powerful and fragmented resistance movement composed of social activists with limited funds and varying levels of public support. Most problematic, much of the populace remains uninvolved politically in such struggles.

The Combatants

The resistance, in this instance, includes organizations seeking enactment of meaningful firearm safety legislation, such as The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence or Everytown for Gun Safety. These organizations continually work for greater firearm safety with their limited funds and relatively small staffs. Unfortunately, only in the wake of mass murders do these organizations garner wide public attention.

The dominant power on this asymmetric battlefield is the National Rifle Association (NRA) with its five million members. The NRA’s commitment to political action is evinced by its communication with its membership, lobbying, campaign contributions, funding of political action committees, and the activities of its Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). The ILA has 5.1 million likes on Facebook and 4.8 million followers. How inflated those numbers may be is debatable, nonetheless they do indicate that the NRA is spreading its message quite widely to its members. In addition, the NRA in the 2016 election year expended $140 million on legislative programs and public affairs. These expenditures included $30 million supporting Donald Trump’s campaign and roughly an additional $20 million spent on congressional races.⁷

While considerable NRA monies come from members, its financial links to the firearms industry are indisputable. These companies contribute millions to the NRA entities and buy millions in advertising in NRA publications. These multi-million-dollar ties to firearms industries include gun or firearm accessory manufacturers providing free NRA memberships with each sale or donating some amount of each sale to the NRA.⁸

The NRA, however, never presents its policy stances as efforts to protect the pecuniary interests of its industry supporters. Instead, the NRA clams to be shielding the rights of American gun owners. The NRA’s rhetoric carries messages far beyond the protection of gun owners’ rights when it is faced with the possibility of legislation enhancing firearm safety. According to Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, speaking just days after the massacre in Parkland, Florida, those seeking additional firearm safety legislation, “… hate the NRA; they hate the Second Amendment; they hate freedom.” He waved yet again NRA’s false flag warning of gun confiscation and creeping authoritarianism, “Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearm freedom, so they can eradicate individual freedom.”⁹ [emphasis added]

An Evolving Struggle

Recent evidence indicates the firearm safety battlefield may be changing. The NRA’s dominance may be waning, at least among some segments of the public. Quinnipiac’s poll of American voters fielded just a week after the Parkland massacre found only 38 percent of voters had a favorable view of the NRA. A majority in some subpopulations did, however, hold a favorable opinion of the NRA―Republicans, rural residents, gun households, those with no college degree, and white males. However, 60 percent of all voters believed the NRA has too much political influence. This was true among subpopulations based on party, race, gender, age, rurality, and gun ownership. Only those identifying as Republicans (66%) disagreed.¹⁰

A poll taken in Florida after Parkland showed the state’s voters deeply troubled by the Parkland massacre. A majority felt national and state governments were not doing enough to reduce gun violence and strongly supported additional firearm safety measures, including universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines, and a ban on military-style assault rifles. When these voters were asked if they would still support a candidate with whom they agreed on other issues but not on gun laws. Two of every five indicated they would not support such candidates.¹¹

The Parkland tragedy may also have added a new, potentially powerful, element to the firearm safety movement. The activism of students and their use of social media spawned the National Student Walkout in which thousands of students across the nation left school to demonstrate for sensible firearm safety legislation. The March for Our Lives, also a response to Parkland, included as many as 200,000 participants in Washington, DC and tens of thousands of marchers in over 800 sibling rallies spread across the United States. The march garnered substantial support from a variety of wealthy individuals, celebrities, and organizations, as well as raising as much as $3,000,000 on GoFundMe.¹²

These events may portend a long-needed change in the political landscape surrounding firearm safety. At the least, this wave of student activism was part of what forced the Florida State Legislature to pass legislation appropriately seen as “firearm safety lite,” focusing largely on raising the age for the purchase of firearms to 21, banning bump-stocks, and providing a three-day waiting period for gun purchases.¹³

Even that weak tea legislation, may be too much for other victims. The recent Santa Fe school shooting is not likely to result in any state legislation unacceptable to the NRA. Though the Governor of Texas has taken a major step (sarcasm here) to show his support for gun safety. His campaign website was sponsoring a contest for a $250 coupon for the purchase of a Texas-made shotgun. Now, the contest now simply offers a $250 gift certificate. Maybe someone will use it to buy an AR-15.¹⁴ The Lt. Governor of Texas’s contribution to enhancing school safety is the suggestion that we would do best to reduce the number of exits and entrances to school for easier policing.¹⁵

In addition, Santa Fe, Texas is not Broward County, Florida. Few of the students there will not be marching for their lives. Like the folks in Sutherland, Texas after the church shooting, they and their parents are more likely to go to a gun dealer, rather than a March for Our Lives. Also, that school district may even join the 170 other school districts in Texas that allow teachers to carry concealed handguns.¹⁶

While the voting population’s support for the NRA may be on the wane, the gun owning population may be changing as well. Gun Owners for Responsible Ownership and Gun Owners for Responsible Gun Control have joined the ranks of those seeking legislative reform.^17,18 Further evidence of change that may bode well for efforts to increase firearm safety comes in changes in the gun owning population. The percent of US households with firearms has fallen by 34 percent over the last four decades (47% to 31%).¹⁹ Harvard’s most recent poll of those 18-29 years of age found 61 percent in favor of stricter gun control measures―a significant increase from the 49 percent indicating such support in 2013.²⁰

Also, as the work by Wertz and his colleagues in their recent article in the American Journal of Public Health indicate, “newer” gun owners differ from “long-standing” gun owners in some potentially important ways. Newer gun owners are more likely to be politically liberal than long-standing gun owners (27.9% to 12.8%), more likely to own fewer firearms, more likely to own only handguns, and more likely to store their firearms safely.²¹ These differences may indicate growing diversity among the NRA’s potential membership, a diversity that may benefit the firearm safety movement.

The NRA, its hardcore members, and its industry backers will not change their response to mass murders. They will always claim the fault lies with the shooter or the lack of “good guys with guns,” rather than the use of the deadly weapons and high-capacity magazines these mass murderers so easily acquire. They will continue to vilify those seeking firearm safety legislation, mendaciously claiming their aim is to confiscate firearms and destroy Americans’ individual freedoms.

The Issue-Attention Cycle

Unfortunately, one expects the issue of firearm safety to continue following what Anthony Downs dubbed the “issue-attention cycle.” Downs observed this cycle in his study of issues related to ecology.²² The cycle has five phases:

“Pre-problem. This is the period when some highly undesirable social condition exists, but that condition has not captured much public attention.
Alarmed Discovery and Euphoric Enthusiasm. Alarm and confidence mark this period. The public becomes aware of the problem and alarmed by its presence. At the same time, many express great confidences in the likelihood that the problem can be solved.
Realizing the Costs of Significant Progress. The realization of the high costs (political, social, or economic) of solving the problem becomes evident. Recognition grows that the “problem” results from arrangements that provide significant benefits (psychological or monetary) to some segment of the society. This often makes any solution to the problem quite difficult without major social change.
Gradual Decline of Intense Public Interest. Some people are discouraged by the magnitude of the changes required. Thoughts of the issue frighten others away, and others simply become bored and their attention wanes. However, some activism remains, and some changes made in earlier phase persevere.
Post-Problem Stage. The public no longer see the issue as central and it is relegated to the periphery of the public spotlight. However, Downs recognizes that there will be “sporadic recurrences of interest.”

The history of the firearm safety movement seems a classic example of this cycle. Firearm safety is what one might call an “episodic issue.” A massacre occurs, and outrage follows. In the face of Columbine, Newtown, Las Vegas, and a plethora of other horrors, most politicians speak of sadness and prayers. That message clearly indicates that they recognize the potentially significant costs to their political careers of pursuing any truly meaningful progress in firearm safety that puts them at odds with the NRA.

Implications of Firearm Safety as an Episodic Issue

The good news, or somewhat good news, is that even though firearm safety is an episodic issue, progress can be made. The period after Newtown resulted in the enactment of new firearm safety legislation in during the period of alarmed discovery some legislative progress can be made. Prior to Stages 4 and 5 in the issue-attention cycle, President Obama signed 23 executive actions aimed at increased gun safety. In addition, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York enacted some elements of meaningful firearm safety legislation.²³

After the Parkland massacre, even the staunchly pro-gun Florida legislature passed their firearm-safety-lite legislation banning bump stocks, raising the age for gun purchases to 21, and adding a three-day waiting period for purchases, and a few of details. Though that legislation is the epitome of a weak tea response, the NRA immediately filed suit, it claims that it did so, allegedly, to protect the 2^nd Amendment rights of those 18-21.²⁴ Young Floridians can’t buy alcohol until they are 21, but the NRA wants to make sure they have largely unfettered access to deadly weapons designed for the express purpose of taking human life.

That firearm safety is truly an episodic issue is also the bad news. No strong, constant countervailing force faces the NRA and the firearms industry. This means that reforms in times of heightened awareness may only address the latest manifestation of our failure to take firearm safety seriously. In Florida, the legislature voted to change the age for acquiring a firearm because the shooter was under 21. And, with any tragedy, gun advocates can point to the details of the incident and show how some element of the firearm safety agenda didn’t stop this or that incident. Which, of course, is true.

However, the process of enhancing firearm safety should be thought of as something like the highway safety movement. Seatbelts didn’t save everyone in a traffic accident. Annual auto safety inspections don’t keep all unsafe cars off the road. The movement to reduce deaths due to drunk driving didn’t stop all deaths related to driving while intoxicated. But, the accumulated effect of these reforms generated a significant and steady decline in highway deaths. Firearm related deaths have not exceeded highway deaths in many states because of the increase in firearm deaths; instead, the cumulative effect of highway safety measures has steadily decreased highway traffic deaths.

The episodic nature of public attention to firearm safety makes it difficult to generate a steady increase in firearm safety that results from the cumulative effect of an array of reforms, each of which contributes to firearm safety. Also, these tragedies that foreshadow episodes of reform tend to generate a “reform” only in the state or region affected by that tragedy. The highway safety movement was more of a national movement. With the NRA more deeply entrenched in the pockets of members of Congress, firearm safety will, I fear, continue to be a patchwork affair with each state moving at its own version of a snail’s pace to greater firearm safety.

However, the Parkland massacre, along with mobilizing students, has, contrary to historical patterns, induced some of the states to develop multi-state coalitions that serve as substitutes for federal action. Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island have formed a coalition, States for Gun Safety.²⁵ Through this coalition, these states, all with relatively strong firearm safety legislation in place, will share data about those persons ineligible to possess firearms, monitor patterns of firearm trafficking, and designate universities to research gun safety issues. Given the paralytic response to gun safety that has characterized action, on inaction, in the US Congress, this effort may provide a model for other states with more progressive approaches to firearm safety.

The Future

It is difficult to predict what the future holds for the firearm safety in America. But, it is early times yet for the March for Our Lives movement and the States for Gun Safety coalition. It is unclear whether this moment in time represents the blossoming of a sustained movement toward greater firearm safety in this nation. This may, unfortunately, just be a passing moment destined to be swallowed up by the incessant drumming of everyday politics and the continually howling of the NRA.

Before one becomes too sanguine about what seems to be the brightening future of firearm safety legislation, one should note the recent uptick in efforts to pass firearm safety legislation in some states has generated a measure of backlash. In Illinois and Oregon, some rural counties are seeking the right to become what they are dubbing “gun sanctuaries” where local law enforcement would not be required to enforce state firearm safety measures championed by their more urban neighbors.²⁶

Supporters of gun safety would do well to remember that some estimates indicate that we have more guns in this country than people. Gun culture has deep, strong roots in our society. The heightened awareness in the issue-attention cycle, rational argument, and compelling data have only occasionally managed to sever some of those pernicious roots.

But, as noted above, the nature and size of the firearm safety movement and its eventual success in procuring enactment of meaningful firearm safety legislation may be on the rise. The waning public support for the NRA, the blossoming activism of students, and changing nature of gun ownership may result in enactment of meaningful firearm safety measures. We can hope that we can reduce the number of empty shoes that might be placed on The Capitol lawn in 2024, six years after the mass murder at Parkland.

REFERENCES

Brutal American Nativism Redux

ATexican

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday December 04, 2017 · 12:12 PM PST

2017/12/04 · 12:12

Largely in response to the excesses of the McCarthy era, John Higham, a historian at Johns Hopkins wrote STRANGERS IN THE LAND: PATTERNS OF AMERICAN NATIVISM, 1860-1925 and published his work in 1955. In that work, he identifies three basic factors underlying nativism in that earlier era. First, anti-Catholicism was at the heart of much of that nativism; the second factor was anti-radicalism; finally, the belief that America was an Anglo-Saxon nation at risk of losing its identity acted as the last leg of this wretched three-legged stool.

Nativism has seen a resurgence in recent days. Obviously, we have the blatant racism and nativism in our current president ― Make America Great, America First, Obama is not an American, Mexicans are murderers and rapists, etc.), and then we have nativism sentiments in segments of the electorate that find voice in the president’s pronouncements. All of this makes it worthwhile to consider whether these three factors apply to our current situation.

ANTI-CATHOLICISM ― Was this serious? Absolutely! Remember as late as the 1960 election, John Kennedy had to assure voters that he wouldn’t be taking orders from the Pope. But, now, this is so old hat. Its current manifestation is the Anti-Islamic Fervor (or fever) we see afoot day. All those wing-nuts braying about Sharia law are just kissing-cousins to those who battled against the sins of “popery” way back when.

ANTI-RADICALISM ― The political unrest and violence during the last decades of the 19^th century and the early 20^th century, much of it associated with European political movements exported to America as well as the labor movement and attempts to repress it, make a large proportion of the leftist unrest of the ‘60s and ‘70s look like kiddies playing in the sandbox. Today, the bomb-throwing leftist and the labor “agitator” of earlier years have been replaced with Muslims, all of whom are un-American, untrustworthy, and thought in some circles to just be waiting for the right opportunity to grab an AK-47 or an explosive vest to become Radical Islamic Terrorists. We’ve seen this before in the Palmer Raids after WWI and in the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Now, we had candidate Trump telling Yahoo news that it was probably a good idea if all Muslims were required to be registered in a federal database and, maybe, issued identification cards (shades of Nazi Germany and yellow Stars of David).

AN ANGLO-SAXON NATION ― The increasing visibility of White Supremacist and the “America Firsters” egged on by the president and the likes of Steve Bannon are simply singing a new verse to this old song. The attacks on refugees from Mexico, Central, and South America, as well as The Middle East is carried out in the guise of crime control and anti-terror tactics. But, as Charlottesville showed us, there is something brutal and nasty at the true heart of all this rhetoric. We just need to remember the chant used in Charlottesville during the torchlight (shades of Nuremburg) parade ― You will not replace us! Jew will not replace us! ― that makes this stunning bigotry clear. However, we must remember the president’s view that “there were some nice people out there” marching with those neo-Nazis and KKK mouth-breathers.

Interestingly, in earlier days, each of these strands bled together ― After all, Sacco and Vanzetti were non-Anglo-Saxon radicals who immigrated to America from a notoriously Catholic country.

The same is true today. The same people who go on about Latino criminals, Islamic terrorists, and Islam’s incompatibility with American values are tying these three strands of nativism up into a single nasty rope, which many of them it seems, would like to use in a figurative or literal lynching.

Evangelical Christians, the Republican donor class, college-educated Republicans, and their fellow-travelers no longer demand decency in the world of politics. They are craven opportunists willing to debase the world of politics to the extent of supporting a pedophile over someone who will vote against tax cuts for the rich or Supreme Court justices who won’t try to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Probably the most horrible thing is that Republican members of Congress, Republican appointed to positions in the government, and Trump supporters all know that the president is removing the top from and vigorously stirring a pot of bigotry, hatred, and violence that we all thought was simply “the ghost of Christmas past.”

Unfortunately, it seems that filthy pot may hold portends of “Christmas Yet to Come.”

see additional commentary on current issues on my blog www.theleftcorner.com

Former President Trump and His "Bully" Pulpit: A Dystopian Vision of Our Future

ATexican

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday October 10, 2017 · 2:16 PM PDT

2017/10/10 · 14:16

As terrible as it is to have this moron as President of the United States for the next three years plus change, I suspect that we will survive. Barring a war with N Korea, I am almost certain he will serve only one term, having discovered that there isn’t that much money to be made as a sitting president.

After all, we survived James Buchanan’s one-term presidency. Okay, his presidency (in which he did almost nothing to alleviate the growing tensions in the nation) did set the stage for the American Civil War. Our nation (led by Lincoln) was left to clean up the mess that Buchanan largely ignored, but the national hurricane that Lincoln faced had its roots buried deeply in American soil before Buchanan took office.

President Grant (1868-1876), always thought the most powerful seeds of the Civil War were really sown in the Mexican-American war (1846-1848). It was a war where Grant fought gallantly, but one he abhorred. He believed that war gave the slave states a vision of coast-to-coast expansion for their “peculiar institution” and for its existence in perpetuity. Lincoln objections to that expansion were the match that lit the fuse on the Rebellion.

If one doubts this, one needs to remember the Knights of the Golden Circle and its grand plan. These noble fellows called for the creation of a “golden circle” of slave territories that extended from Texas to central America and circled back across the ocean to encompass Cuba and other island before it completed the circle of slave chains with a line back to Florida.

The heart of the Golden Circle was formed in the Mexican war. It was, after all, Elkanah Greer, future general in the army of the Confederate States of America, who organized 21 “castles” and 4,000 knights in Texas and Louisiana. Oh, and remember that Greer served with Jefferson Davis and his Mississippi Volunteers in the Mexican-American War.

So, new leaders must always deal with the misdeeds and miscalculations of previous presidents. Trump’s pseudo-populism and his evident racism have allowed those emotions, which we have largely kept simmering beneath a boil, to rise up as seemingly meaningful aspects of American culture. Angry white guys have been around for a good while now; they basically see the world as a zero-sum game, where any benefit that goes to others comes out of their empty pockets. These folks are not going away anytime soon, but we all need to remember that they are maybe 1/3 of the Republican party electorate. Their ascendancy in 2017 was a fluke.

More importantly, someone will need to reinstate all those Obama era policies that DJT has so happily reversed. Don’t be surprised if he kills a Thanksgiving turkey on the White House lawn, just because Obama pardoned one. His antipathy to this “outsider’s” presidency is that intense and mindless.

Putting the issues noted above aside, most former presidents fade into the woodwork after they leave office. The authors, like Buchanan, Hoover, and Nixon of serious misdeeds and miscalculations have almost always slipped beneath the pages of history after their errors and miscalculations.

Look at the Bush presidents, Clinton, and (I expect) Obama. They each find ways to occupy their time after leaving office without endlessly assailing the public with their visage or their pontifications. Poppy Bush took up sky-diving and trying to provide enough flame for a thousand points of light. George W is painting. Clinton started piling up speaking fees and feeding the Clinton Foundation.

Unfortunately, that is not what I expect for our future. What we must look forward to is the possibility of a former president, no matter how disastrous his term and his policies or how low his approval rating, who will constantly seek all the limelight that Fox News and all the rest of the media reserve for former presidents. Barring a fatal illness, we will have in our future, for at least an additional decade, an inability to ban that orange visage from our video devices.

He will tweet; he will give interviews; he will issue statements about everything his successors do or don’t do. All of it will be ideology-free, but it will, like his current pronouncements, be the truly objectionable self-promotion, self-aggrandizement, and venomous Neolithic tripe that feeds his narcissistic soul and makes his supporters ready to “kick some ass.” Roughly 30 percent of Americans now approve of what Trump is doing. He will continue to play that role if anyone anywhere will listen.

Four years now seems almost intolerable. But, HRC won the popular vote by almost 2 million votes. DJT won with less than 80,000 votes in key states. I doubt that Democratic strategist will make that mistake again. So, I expect a D to take the White House in 2020, if they can keep the D primaries from being a circular firing squad. I think we will all be able to drink a toast after the next presidential election, rather than drown our sorrows.

But, we need to remember. The continual playing of loud, metal or hair band music was a part of the enhanced interrogation techniques we now see as torture. But, having to listen to his self-aggrandizing asshat for a decade and a half, at a minimum, seems like the horrible type of experience that I am sure the World Court in The Hague would judge to be torture. I’ll admit that 15 years of Trumpism versus 15 years of listening to “We are the Champions” at high volume seems to really be six of one or half-dozen of another.

Of course, the only thing that might stem the flow of that obnoxious verbiage would be an impeachment or a criminal conviction with a prison term. He would continue to bloviate, but all he would talk about is how unjust it all was. He will not be able to stop himself. Remember, he is still pissed about stories about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. But, his attempts to cry “foul!” over how he was treated by the courts or congress. That is not a topic that will keep the news channels attention for long.

We can only hope. There are, after all, only a limited number of times over the next 15 years that you can substitute Netflix or Amazon Prime for MSNBC.

See additional commentary at my blog — theleftcorner.com

Things I don't Believe About Electoral Politics in 2016 and My Predictions for 2020.

ATexican

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday August 16, 2017 · 3:43 PM PDT

2017/08/16 · 15:43

THINGS I DON’T BELIEVE

1. Democrats Must Dramatically Change Their Approach to Electoral Politics for 2020

HRC won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. DJT won the presidency because of the quirky, antiquated Electoral College. A change of as little as 80,000 votes in the right places, out of 139 million votes (about 0.06%) would have elected HRC.

All those in-depth looks at which groups voted how is just so much eye-wash. Yes, HRC lost among less educated whites and won a lower percentage of blacks than Obama. Again, it was less than 80,000 votes in very limited geographic areas that made the difference.

Navel-gazing at the entirety of the American electorate as a whole or in segments is just done because that is what people always do or because they have a pony they want to ride (as in, Ds need to win X to do well in 2020).

In this election, such analyses are relatively meaningless http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Note: This does not say anything about what the Ds message in 2020 or 2018 should be. It just says that whatever the message was in 2016, it was not fatal to HRC and the Ds.

2.Democrats Must Woo Trump Voters to Win in the Future

Let’s forget about wooing real die-hard Trump voters back into the fold. They will never vote for a Democrat. They may not even vote for a Republican in the next election, if he is less of a nut job than Trump. The core Trump voter is someone who distrusts all governmental institutions and feels both ignored and alienated. They liked DJT’s rebelliousness and “screw the elites” attitude. They really didn’t care too much about what he would or wouldn’t do for them.

3. Democrats Must Woo Moderate Republicans to Win in the Future

We will not do any better with moderate Republicans. Since “moderate” as well as conservative Rs voted for DJT, that means moderate Republicans would basically be willing to vote for their friend’s dog who always humps their leg when it sees them ― as long as it is running as a Republican. Remember, these are the folks that polls now indicate feel that DJT is doing a great job.

4. HRC lost because of All Those Obama Voters Who Voted for Trump

One of the more mysterious aspects of 2016 is the issue of how many Obama voters voted for Trump. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_geoffrey_skelley/just_how_many_obama_2012_trump_2016_voters_were_there

Yes, some folks voted for Obama in 2008, 2012, or 2008 and 2012 and then voted for Trump in 2016. Post-election analyses indicate that roughly 6 to 9 million voters went for Obama at some point to Trump in 2016. The three estimates discussed in the Rasmussen article noted above ranged from 11 to 15 percent of Obama voters.

However, these figures should be taken with some good measure of skepticism. Such numbers are quite slippery because of the proven tendency of people to say they voted for a winner. For example, Obama won in 2012 with 51% of the vote, but 58% of poll respondents said they voted for Obama [American National Election Study].

So, let’s take the middle value for the percentage of Obama to Trump switchers from the three surveys reviewed in the Rasmussen article (13%) and reduce that by the 7 percent of folks (58%-51%) with faulty recall about their previous “Obama” vote. We then get roughly 6% of Obama voters who voted for Trump.

But, we also have 4 percent of Romney voters (if you voted for a loser you are more likely to be accurate) who voted for HRC. So, HRC seems to have (best guess) lost 6 percent of Obama voters and gained 4 percent of Romney voters, and she won by almost 3 million votes.

The only way that “switchers” make any difference in future elections is if most of those them are in battleground states. Unfortunately, the 2012 to 2016 data do imply that most of those switchers were in upper midwestern or rust belt states, which have traditionally been Democratic in presidential politics. It seems that the traditional definition of battleground states may need to change, which means campaign strategies need to change.

[Personal Note: I still (no matter what the numbers) wonder how the hell people could vote for Obama and then vote for Trump. What were (are) those people thinking, if anything? Talk about thesis/antithesis. Could the differences between these two men have been any clearer?]

5. Jill Stein of the Green Party Was the Reason HRC Lost

Third-Party candidates pulled in about 6 million votes in 2016. Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson garnered 4,442,771 votes (3.3% of total), while Jill Stein of the Green Party pulled in 1,420,351 votes (1.1% of total vote). http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308353-trump-won-by-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three

That is all very interesting, but the hullabaloo is all about two or three states. In Michigan, Trump defeated Democrat HRC by 10,704 votes, while Stein got 51,463 votes. in Wisconsin, DJT’s margin was 22,177, while Stein received 31,006 votes. If some good measure of Stein’s vote had gone to HRC in those two states, then Trump would have lost 26 electoral votes. He would have had only 276 Electoral College votes. But, all you need is 270, so “eh!”

Also, third-part voters are notoriously unpredictable. A third-party vote is almost always a protest vote. Although most of Stein’s voters surely abhorred DJT, there is no convincing evidence that they would have come out for HRC. For most third-party voters, the Rs and Ds are usually seen as “tweedledee and tweedledum” or “six of one or a half dozen of the other.”

6. Black Voter Turnout in 2016 Was HRC’s Problem

The US has about 239 million voting age individuals in the USA. Just over 60% of the voting-eligible population, voted in November. In 2012, 59% of eligible voters went to the polls, but in 2008 just over 62% turned to vote. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/voter-turnout-2016/

Some analysts focus heavily on changes in the racial/ethnic composition of the electorate from 2012 to 2016.

“Among minority groups, black Americans showed the sharpest decline in voter turnout– 7.1 percent since 2012. At 59.6 percent, it was the lowest black turnout rate since 2000. This is notable because 2012 was the first year since records were kept that black turnout eclipsed white turnout nationally. The 2016 black turnout rate lies nearly six points behind that of the white turnout rate.”

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/

That is all national data, but we and the author (Frey) know that presidential voting is really a state matter. So, the article addresses this issue.

“Even though there was a downturn in black Democratic support in 2016, Hillary Clinton still won the popular vote with the help of all minority groups. It was the Electoral College that elected Donald Trump—who squeezed out close votes in six states: four in the industrial North (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) and two in the fast-growing South (North Carolina and Florida). Although Trump’s win in each of these states can be chalked up to the vote advantages he received among white Americans who showed up on Election Day, this was amplified by the improved turnout of white Americans compared with black Americans.”

But, as the author notes, the white voting age population dwarfs the black voting age population, and white voter turnout increased in 2016.

Using a number online sources, I looked at Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In three of these five states (FL, NC, and WI), even if black voter turnout had not changed from 2012, the increase in white voter turnout would have still given the state to DJT. However, in the very tight races in Pennsylvania and Michigan, the slightly greater than 12% decrease in black voting from 2012 did seem to mark those 27 Electoral College votes for DJT, which is not enough to have turned the election.

So, again, it is not national trends that tell the tale. It is the facts about specific states that give us a better picture of what happened in 2016.

A PREDICTION I DON’T BELIEVE

TRUMP WILL NOT LAST FOUR YEARS

Seriously, there is going to have to be photos of him holding a smoking gun with the dead bodies of multiple, major Republican contributors strewn across the carpet in the Oval Office before congressional Republicans will give up DJT ― who for them, like a sexually transmitted disease, is “the gift that keeps on giving.”

And, even though he really hates the job, he will not quit because that would have some people put him in the category of “loser,” which he would find intolerable.

Paul Krugman had a very clever essay where he discussed the congressional Republican’s glee at their ability to have DJT (the President) support what Krugman called “zombie” and “vampire” policies. Zombie policies are those like trickle-down economics, which will be a rationalization for their revisions to the tax code, that you thought you had killed long ago but have been brought back to life in this Congress. Vampire policies are those, like the Republican health care plans, that only have a chance of being passed if they are never exposed to the light of day.

Congressional Rs and their major donors are set to have so much fun with these legislative horrors that Trump would have to lift Melania up and purposefully throw her off the steps of Air Force One for them to even consider losing this asshat.

PREDICTIONS FOR 2020 THAT I THINK ARE LIKELY

DJT will not run in 2020. He will declare a tremendous victory for the American people and go back to pursuing his business interests from someplace other than the White House. For DJT, politics is just too much trouble, though he does like those rallies where he can bask in the fevered glow of enthusiastic support. But, he can still have some of those as an ex-president.

Mike Pence will be the R’s nominee in 2020. He is already building support among heavy-hitting Republican supporters. He will not do much to energize the Trump or Tea Party wing of the party, but traditional Republicans will heave a sigh of relief and pony up serious cash. Also, he could win over some of the right-wing-nuts by picking someone like Ted Cruz as a running mate.

So, Pence might be vulnerable in 2020, but that means the Ds will have to find an attractive set of candidates. Who that might be is extraordinarily unclear.

[See my blog theleftcorner.com for additional posts on current issues. Check the Table of Contents post for a list of post titles.]

“Alt-Right” is “newspeak.” These groups are far-right hate groups. Call them what they are.

ATexican

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday August 16, 2017 · 11:02 AM PDT

2017/08/16 · 11:02

“Alt-Right” is “newspeak.” These groups are far-right hate groups. Call them what they are.

The term Alt-Right is a fiction conjured up because the Nazis, Klukkers, and White Supremacists who don’t want to be called out for what they really are. When commentators and the rest of us say “Alt-Right” it elevates the status of these hate groups to some semblance of normality and respectability.

They are American Neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and White Supremacists. When we speak of them separately, it is simple to apply their true titles. But, these groups have always blended over into and supported each other. Now, in their new ascendancy, that collaboration is clear. So, when we must speak of this band of “despicables” as one entity, we must call that entity what it is. The term Alt-Right is newspeak for ― far-right hate groups.

Why is this so important? Let me call up a few paragraphs from my posting on “The Gun Lobby and Firearm Fascism in America” to elaborate on this point. [See https://theleftcorner.com/2015/08/01/the-gun-lobby-and-firearm-fascism-in-america/]

“In discussing the work of the Gestalt psychologist Wolfgang Kohler on the relationship between words and symbolic meaning, Adam Alter makes an important observation about naming and its implications. He notes that ‘If you’re like the vast majority of Köhler’s [test participant or] respondents, you’re compelled by the idea that [one feels that objects called] malumas are soft and rounded …, whereas [one feels that objects named] taketes are sharp and jagged….’

The argument here is that words [and even the sounds of which they are composed] carry hidden baggage that plays an important role in shaping how we think about what we have named. For Adler, ‘What’s surprising, perhaps, is how profoundly a single word can shape material outcomes over time.”

In addition, after reviewing some of the more current literature on the psychology of naming, Adler concludes that “as soon as you label a concept, you change how people perceive it.’” [emphasis added]

To the degree that we persist in using this mundane sounding newspeak term, Alt-Right, we immediately imply that the Alt-Right is just another group of political activists trying, like all other political groups, to swim its way though the currents and rapids that sweep us through American political life.

But, the Alt-Right are not like other political groups. They are right-wing hate groups that see violence as a valid form of political expression. While they love their own idea of America, they literally hate the reality of America. They hate, take your pick ― immigrants, Jews, people of color, progressives, and anyone else who does not share their darkly distorted vision of history and of this nation. And, they literally want to physically smash those they hate or do not share that vision.

In the same way, antifa, for all its claims to be purely defensive, is simply a group of violent far-leftists.

When President Trump asked the reporter how to define “Alt-Right,” the answer need not have been elaborate. They are far-right hate groups. They should be called nothing else.

[See additional commentary on social and political issues at my blog]

Happy July 4TH, But Don't Forget January 6th

ATexican

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday July 04, 2017 · 10:25 AM PDT

2017/07/04 · 10:25

The fourth day of July each year for the last 241 years has been the day of the year set aside for celebrating the signing of the American Declaration of Independence (not to worry that it was really signed two day earlier). The document is a bold statement of defiance against the English Empire and a truly astonishing (for its times) statement of rights for a new nation and its people, Americans.

The words in the document that seem the most compelling to us today include the statement of rights.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowe3d by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness ― That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In its day and age, this was incredibly forward thinking. Consent, liberty, and happiness were not words, in this era, associated with government, except in philosophical tracts. But, here in black and white were those term linked directly to the development of a new nation with a new form of operating government.

We all know that the Constitution that followed the Declaration lacked much of the high-mindedness of the Declaration. We certainly know that the governments formed under that Constitution often completely ignored the text and intent of the Declaration, especially the idea that those rights extended to women, people of color, or dissenters.

I like the celebration of July 4^th as a symbol of my nation’s beginning. But, if I were to choose a holiday that I preferred, it would be January 6^th. My personal feeling is that we would now be better served by celebrating January 6^th as the day that freedom for the modern era rang its own Liberty Bell.

That was the day that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1941 (just a few months after America’s entry into WWII) gave his most famous State of the Union address to Congress. In that address, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were complemented (if not supplanted) with “the four freedoms.”

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

All these freedoms were aimed at the entire world. I have narrowed my own perspective on these freedoms to hope that we can, at the least, try to apply them to our own nation. While we have spent some reasonable time fumbling with the meaning of those first two freedoms, we seem to have never really accepted the latter two.

In domestic policy terms, I think that freedom from want and freedom from fear are intertwined. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Johnson Great Society were programmatic attempts in America to meet the goal of freedom from, at the least, extreme or perilous wants. Adequate income, the availability of health care, and the opportunity for gainful employment were at the heart of these two visions of a better America.

Also, for many vulnerable populations in our society, these programs aimed at “want” also attacked the terrible fear among many in our nation that our society would abandon its vulnerable to the harsh fate of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” For too many people, that metaphorical hand is so often more like an armored fist that hovers above them, pounding downward to crush their hopes and fragile fabric of their lives.

In many ways, the two major parties today have policies that can be comes up easily. Republicans believe that government is something that stands in the way of individual and corporate success. Democrats believe that government stands between its citizens and “the outrage slings and arrows of fortune” and that its duty is to “take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.” Shakespeare had Hamlet talking about his personal troubles and choices, but those phrase, when applied more broadly, tell us about the role of government as seen by progressives.

Today, the members of the Democratic Party are floundering around trying to understand how to “sell” the party to the voters in 2018 and 2020. For my part, I think that they should hark back to January 6, 1941 and embrace the “Four Freedoms” as the core of their efforts.

All of this may sound naïve and too abstract, but it is not a bad time for broader political thinking to dominate tactical thinking in both foreign policy and in domestic politics. If the Democratic Party wants to know what it should stand for, then they have a proud history that points the way. As Roosevelt noted, the idea of Four Freedoms :

“…. is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation…. “

Other commentaries on social and political issues can be found on my blog, theleftcorner.com

A Commentary on Changing the Structure of Medicaid

ATexican

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday June 24, 2017 · 7:56 AM PDT

2017/06/24 · 07:56

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed the bills authorizing both the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Unlike all the hyped “signings” of executive orders by the current president, Johnson signed real bills passed by both house of Congress that affected millions of Americans. Johnson (who had headed the Texas National Youth Administration for FDR), in essence, fulfilled much of the promise of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal when he signed those bills.

The program reaches deeply into this nation’s vulnerable populations. Medicaid currently covers 20% of all Americans, 30% of adults with disabilities, 76% of poor children, 60 percent of children with disabilities, and 64% of nursing home residents.¹ In total, Medicaid paid for care for over 81 million Americans in fiscal 2014.² That coverage and care is not cheap. Medicaid is now a federal and state program with expenditures in 2015 of $545 billion.³

Roughly 38% of those funds come from state governments and 62% is supplied by the federal government. One continually hears Republicans and some health economists lament the horrible growth of these expenditures and the percentage of state and federal monies that go to Medicaid.

On average, in fiscal 2014 roughly 15% of state government budgets (total Medicaid expenditures minus Federal funds) were used to fund Medicaid. In terms of the federal outlays, Medicaid accounted for 9.5% of the US government’s budget in fiscal 2015.⁴

Those figures are interesting, but need to be put in a broader perspective. Total Medicaid expenditures equal almost 18% of total National Health Expenditures and 3% of the Gross Domestic Product.² So, for just a trifle over 3% of GDP we provide health care for one-fifth of all Americans, including more than half of poor children, children with disabilities, and nursing home residents.

Nonetheless, Republicans in Congress see that as extravagant. They would cut roughly $800 billion from Medicaid over the next ten years. Just as an aside, they will also reduce taxes by almost a trillion dollar over that same period, with the top one percent of wage earners receiving roughly 40% of those tax reductions.⁵

They would also dramatically change the way the federal government funds Medicaid. Currently, state governments have eligibility and payment rules that determine their total Medicare expenditures. The federal government pays a percentage, which varies by state, of whatever those total Medicaid expenditures may be.

Under the proposed Medicaid funding strategy, each state would get a single amount equal to a per capital payment for each person enrolled in Medicaid in that state in 2016. That total would then increase each year. That rate of increase would most likely be rate for the medical component of the consumer price index. It would also change for each state as the mix of types of people covered in a state changed and the number of individuals enrolled changes.⁶ One major problem with this strategy is that it does not consider state-specific changes in program eligibility, changes in payment rates, or changes over time in the level of expenditures per enrollee.⁷

Probably the most useful evidence on what might occur with the proposed Medicaid funding plan comes from a simulation performed by researchers at The Brookings Institution.⁶ These three researchers describe their methodology in the following way:

“To gain insight into the likely effects of this change in Medicaid’s financing structure, we examine how state and federal budgets would have been affected if a similar proposal had been implemented in the recent past. In particular, we use state-level data on historical Medicaid spending published by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation to examine how states would have fared in 2011 had a cap with the structure specified in the AHCA been implemented in 2004 based on spending levels in 2000. We choose this time period because of the ready availability of suitable data.” (page 1)

Their five basic conclusions from these analyses of the effects of a “Medicaid per capita cap” are:⁶

Over half of the states would have experienced significant reductions in federal funding for their Medicaid programs.
No states would have received increased funding under this model. The effects would only be neutral or negative.
Those states with the lowest per capita expenditures rates in the base year were more likely to see funding reductions because of their likelihood of higher annual changes in per capita expenditures in later years (i.e., due to regression to the mean).
States risks of incurring significantly larger than expected losses in a federal funding were asymmetric. These risks would vary considerably based on state-specific changes in the demographics of the state population, changes in population health status, public health emergencies (e.g., Zika), and changes in medical practice or technology.
States with higher changes in medical expenditures than the project national change would suffer larger reductions in federal funding, while states with lower than the projected national levels would largely be unaffected by the capping mechanism.

The work by Adler, Fieldler, and Gronniger at Brookings provides considerable assistance in understanding the dynamics of potential federal funding reductions under the basic plans proposed by the House of Representatives’ American Health Care Act and the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act.

A basic mystery lies, however, at the heart of all these discussions. What will states do to compensate for the loss of federal Medicaid funds? The states have two basic options. First, they can raise taxes to replace those lost federal funds, or they can cut Medicaid expenditures through changes in eligibility, coverage, or payments.

Those states most likely to be hurt under the new system, according to the Brookings work, are those with the lowest per capita Medicaid expenditures.⁶Of the ten states with the lowest per capita Medicaid expenditures, only five adopted the Medicaid expansion in which the federal government paid 95% of the costs and the state paid 5% of the bill. Fourteen other states also failed to adopt the expansion.⁸

One suspects, though it must at this point only be a strong suspicion, that the states legislatures in those 19 states will be less than enthusiastic when asked to assume increased state expenditures for Medicaid under a plan such as those being proposed. They would not accept a 5% increase, and they are likely be faced with federal One is more likely to see programmatic changes that remove individuals or providers from the Medicaid rolls to avert increased expenditures.

Another other hint at what states most likely to be hurt by the change in payment might do can be found by looking at current tax activity in the states. The three basic sources of tax revenue for states are the sales tax, property taxes, and personal income taxes.⁹Looking at the estimated tax burden in the ten states with the lowest per capita Medicaid expenditures and most likely to be affected by a new Medicaid structure may also be instructive.

Six of the ten states most likely to be affected by the change in Medicare payment from the federal government rank in the lowest two-fifths (quintiles) of state tax burden. They ranked between 30^th and 45^th in state tax burden.¹⁰ If one takes a low tax burden as an indicator of a state legislatures aversion to raising taxes, then these six states seem among those states that would be the least willing to raise the tax burden to compensate for lost federal Medicaid funding. Again, the only alternative would be to reduce Medicaid services.

If the Rs pass a bill that resembles what we see in their current bills, in the 10 states included in this commentary, and probably in many more, Thomas Egan in the NYT sums up the results of such a change.

“Inevitably, with something that deprives upward of 23 million Americans of health care, people will die because of this bill. States will be making life and death decisions as they drop the mandated benefits of Obamacare and cut vital care for the poor, the elderly, the sick and the drug-addicted through Medicaid. The sunset of Obamacare is the dawn of death panels.”¹¹ [emphasis added]

Additional commentary on public policy and politics can be found on my blog—theleftcorner.com

Where do the Dems go from Here? The Pew Results

ATexican

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday June 23, 2017 · 6:41 AM PDT

2017/06/23 · 06:41

This is the latest Pew poll about the percent of respondents expressing approval of the performance of Donald Trump as President. It has some interesting implications, which are discussed below.

PEW RESEARCH CENTER JUNE 2017 POLL PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL
Sample of US Citizens	Overall Approval		Strongly Approve
Total	39%		29%
Percentage Point Differences from National Approval Levels for Selected Sub-Populations
	ALL RACES AND ETHNICITIES		WHITES NH ONLY
	Overall	Strongly	Overall	Strongly
Men 18-49	+1	-2	+15	+7
Men 50+	+11	+11	+19	+19
Women 18-49	-15	-14	-8	-9
Women 50+	+4	+4	+15	+12

Men-College grad	-4	-3	+4	+2
Men-Less educated	+8	+7	+24	+19
Women-College grad	-13	-13	-8	-8
Women-Less educated	-2	-1	+10	+10

Registered Voter	+3	+2	+12	+10
Not Registered to Vote	-10	-9	+5	+1

Republican	+47	+42	+47	+42
Democrat	-33	-25	-33	-23
Independent	-4	-6	+5	+1

For the upcoming 2018 elections, we have two issues: 1. To what degree should the elections be focused on the candidates support of Trump? 2. Who should the Dems try to mobilize.

The answer to the first issue is that I think a positive vote on TrumpCare (or TrumpDoesNotReallyCare) should be hung around the neck of each Rs running in 2018. The issue is highly visible, and people are beginning to recognize the potential negative effects of the bill. However, job creation and economic growth are also important, and the Ds need a strategy to mobilize on those issues as well as healthcare.

I think that the table above provides good guidance on who the Ds need to mobilize. The answer seems to be college-educated women, where even whites have a negative view of Trump. Also, younger women (18-49) should be a prime target. With all in the AHCA that will affect women’s health, that should be a good issue.

The next groups are those not registered to vote (especially non-whites or Hispanics, a tough crowd, but one that is very likely to be adversely affected by policies voted on by the Republicans) and also those who identify as Democrats. The idea that the Ds should be seeking moderate Republicans or Independents is, I fear, a losing proposition. Rs had very strong party loyalty, and independents aren't necessarily going to vote for Ds.

The real fields that can need to be successfully plowed by the Democrats are those that they have tried to plow for many years -- the D base has to be mobilized enough to come out like they did for Obama and did not do for Clinton; the electorate needs to be expanded and brought to the polls.

NOTE ON LATEST SPECIAL ELECTIONS: While some pundits are lamenting the recent losses in special elections, I am heartened by them. All those districts were deeply red, Republican, districts, and the Democrat came within “spittin” distance of a victory. That is really a good sign.

Source: http://www.people-press.org/2017/06/20/presidential-approval-detailed-tables-june-2017/?utm_source=adaptivemailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=17-06-20%20political%20parties&org=982&lvl=100&ite=1304&lea=278963&ctr=0&par=1&trk=

Additional post and commentaries can be found at my blog— theleftcorner.com

Is It The Economy, Again, Stupid?

ATexican

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday February 25, 2017 · 9:19 AM PST

2017/02/25 · 09:19

Depending on your perspective, there is much gloating or hand-wringing about President Trump’s approval ratings. He is seen by a majority as more poorly suited for the job than previous presidents. People trust him less; they see a variety of ethical flaws in how he is dealing with his business interests. Most people think he has little respect for democratic institutions; many disagree with his immigration policy.

But, we need to remember James Carville’s dictum “It’s the ECONOMY, stupid!” The reality is that no matter how despicable many find the president and his acolytes; a sizable proportion of the American people have high hopes for what he will do with the economy. The latest Pew results are very telling.

Attitudes about our economic status and future are going up at a precipitous rate. According to Pew polls, forty-two percent of Americans now have a positive attitude about the country’s economic status; that is up 11 percent over the last two months.

http://www.people-press.org/2017/02/16/in-first-month-views-of-trump-are-already-strongly-felt-deeply-polarized/

There is still a deep partisan divide. 75 percent of Republicans see the economy for 2017 positively; only 15% of Democrats see it that way, but 35% of Independents have higher hopes, which is something like a 50 percent improvement over their views a short time ago.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/12/08/low-approval-of-trumps-transition-but-outlook-for-his-presidency-improves/

What all this means in the long-run is unclear. But, while The Donald’s opponents, like me, may smirk at his claims of support, many people seem to see his election as a precursor to good economic times. And, truth be told, if that continues, then all the ethical lapses, bogus claims of support, hubbub, teeth-gnashing, and raucous town hall meetings may not mean a great deal.

If more people continue to see their economic status positively and think it is likely to get better, then there is good historical precedent indicating that that they will be more than willing to forgive all those transgressions that have progressives rattling their sabers. If the Republicans do manage to pass legislation that represents their image of a good economy, we get in a devastating trade war, or prices and job prospects go bad, then those other transgressions will grow in importance.

As it stands, American’s views on the economy should not be so easily ignored by progressive commentators. They have been, are, and ever shall be a major engine in what drives votes in America.

see additional progressive political and social commentary at my blog theleftcorner.com

Lay Down Your Bets, Folks. What will The Donald Do 11/9?

ATexican

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday November 06, 2016 · 10:13 AM PST

2016/11/06 · 10:13

Below, you will find a poll concerning what you believe The Donald will do after he loses the election. I know that these aren’t mutually exclusive responses. So, as in Chicago, you can try to vote early and often.

Poll

97 votes Show Results

What will Trump do when he loses the election?

97 votes Vote Now!

What will Trump do when he loses the election?

Concede graciously and pledge to work with winner to help Americans.

1 vote

Concede with little or no grace

13 votes

Will make no concession and claim the election was rigged.

24 votes

Will make no concession and indicate that he will contest result in the courts.

27 votes

Will make no concession and indicate that he will continue striving to make America great again.

14 votes

Have someone else concede for him.

3 votes

Nothing. He will hibernate.

4 votes

He will tout his new business venture with Breitbart's Bannon.

9 votes

He will make a statement lamenting how much he spent to lose.

2 votes

Trump’s Words and Clinton’s Actions: A Distinction Without a Difference?

ATexican

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday October 11, 2016 · 10:56 AM PDT

2016/10/11 · 10:56

The die-hard Trumpeteers don’t really care what DJT says. As he admitted earlier in the campaign, he could shoot someone on 5^th Avenue, and they would still vote for him.

My response to those Trumpeteer women voters who say "it's just man talk, bad boy talk. I hear it all the time," is fairly simple. [posted earlier on Facebook]

“You should find some new male friends and a new sense of their own worth. Guys who talk about sexual assault as if it were as common as talking about sports are the scum that floats on the edge of the gene pool. You best get shed of those guys before they infect you with the same diseases that twisted and sickened their souls.”

But, then we have the sleazy surrogates and campaign staff like Kellyanne Conway and Rudy Giuliani (asshats all) who crow, “Why should we be talking about what DJT said, when Bill and Hillary did so much worse? He assaulted women. She shamed and attacked them.”

All these asshats may try to kid us, but they (especially the women among them) know the dark truth. How would DJT know that “women will let you do anything if you are a celebrity”? Duh, because he has done it; that’s how he knows.

These women also know that no man who is almost 60 years old talks like that about women, unless he is deeply misogynistic and completely convinced that he can use his power to do with women (these objects) anything he wants. Men like that don’t just talk trash; as sure as our planet rotates on an axis, they invariably do trashy things.

Do DJT’s sins absolve Bill Clinton? No, they do not. Clinton throughout his life in politics and the public eye used his status to further his hormonal or ego-fed urges. Personally, I think he is the worst thing about HRC’s candidacy. He disgraced his office and wasted almost his entire last term defending his misdeeds. A lot of people still love him. I may respect some of what he has done, but I neither respect nor even like him.

But, Bill Clinton is not running for office. HRC is the candidate. What did she do? She believed her husband and tried to protect him, his legacy, and his work. She did what any wife or husband would do, until it became clear that it was all, in its ugly glory, true or close to the truth.

So, HRC may be guilty of taking actions to protect her family and her husband. She may have had Bill’s accusers investigated, and she may have been dismissive of their claims. It may not be a pretty thing, but it is what most of us would do if we believed our spouse was being unjustly attacked.

But, compare that with the recent actions of DJT in the Machado affair. What did he do? He tried, during this campaign, to discredit her with a tweet about a non-existent sex tape and with continuing attempts to body shame her. I think all of that is really much worse action than anything Hillary did back in the 90s, and he did it during this campaign.

Did he do this to protect a family member whom he thought was unjustly accused? No, he did it to cover his own ass and deny what a towering orange mass of misogyny and narcissism he truly is.

Words can be bad; some actions can indeed be worse than words. Some words can also be worse than actions. But, words and statement are themselves actions, at least according Trump, et al. when they talk about HRC (e.g., shaming or discrediting words are treated as actions).

Commentators and voters need to hold DJT to the same standard that he and his cronies have set for HRC. His words are actions; they are as hurtful as a punch in the nose. Even worse, they are incredibly dangerous in “the man who would be king.”

Why I Abhor Lying, Crooked Hugh Hewitt and Little Kellyanne Conway (Hardball's new buddies)

ATexican

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday September 05, 2016 · 8:48 AM PDT

2016/09/05 · 08:48

I am an an MSNBC fan. Basically, the only TV source I use for politics, but lately things have gotten a bit weird and it irks me. Hardball has brought on a commentator, Hugh Hewitt, with a great radio voice and really nice hair. Unfortunately, he is just a broken record who, between offering up a few interesting tidbits of punditry, spends most of his time on Hardball spewing out mostly traditional but some Trumpian Republican applause lines at any opportunity.

Hewitt was sensible enough to leave Trump hanging on criticizing Gold Star families and that Obama founded ISIS, but he can never resist an opportunity to talk about the gold star Moms that Trump trotted out to blame HRC for their sons' deaths in Benghazi. Of course, seven reports have cleared Hillary on any charges of wrongdoing. But, Hugh is more interested in slinging mud than providing information. He is a right-wing foghorn that Matthews and other commentators treat with kid gloves.
And, as Hewitt signs off each commentary, he almost always throws in every current and past international crisis that he can spew out in the remaining time and blames HRC. Like many right wing zealots, they are intent on making it seem that she is this arch-criminal who has been single-handed controlled international events for decades, and doing it so badly that the nation is a tailspin of epic portions (you know, like the ones about which Glenn Beck is always so "sincerely" preaching moist-eyed doom and gloom).

Seriously, Hewitt's worked as an atty in the Reagan admin, but his greatest claim to fame seems to be that he oversaw the construction of the Nixon library and tried to ban from it all those untrustworthy and "irresponsible journalists" like, as the best example, the notoriously unprofessional (irony here, folks) Bob Woodward.

Then, we have Ms. Conway. Almost every commentator has been falling over their tongues to praise her savvy and skills. Please get real. She was part of a Ted Cruz PAC who showed the incredible moral courage of becoming Donald Trump's campaign manager, managing the campaign of the guy who said Cruz's father was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

Admittedly, she is not stupid. She is slick. But, she tries to sell BS like "bigot" really means HRC has supported policies that have disadvantaged African-Americans. She would do better to look at her candidate’s record for a definition of bigot. It seems to forget she is working for a guy who took out a full page newspaper ad calling for re-institution of the death penalty for the young black men who were wrongly convicted of the Central Park rape and whose real estate ventures have been mired in charges of discriminatory housing. And, he was the poster boy for the birther movement. Walks like a bigot; talks like a bigot, etc.

Yet, Chris Matthews seems to do what he often does for mysterious reasons--have his "favorites" who get special treatment. Matthews, Mr Interruption and Mr. I Can Talk Over Anyone Since It Is My Show, and other commentators give Hewitt and Conway completely undeserved deference.

It is the rough equivalent of what you have to wipe off your boots when you come in from the corral, then they need to call it, not act like it is news or serious information.

Newer
Older

RSS