The Tar Heel State
North Carolina is pretty close to a must win state for Trump. Romney won the state in 2012, despite losing the election by 4%. It has 15 electoral votes, and Clinton could win even without North Carolina, if she holds New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and the upper Great Lakes—all areas where she is well ahead. And she currently leads in North Carolina polls, albeit by a small margin. Here is the early voting as of today, compared to the same date in 2012:
However, I also noticed this information about a change in NC election law, which occurred after the 2012 election:
In August 2013, North Carolina enacted the worst voter suppression law in the country. Among other provisions, this “monster” law (H.B. 589) shortens the early voting period by a full week, eliminates same-day registration, requires strict forms of voter ID, prevents out-of-precinct ballots from being counted, expands the ability to challenge voters at the polls, and ends a successful pre-registration program for 16- and 17-year olds. Each of these provisions has a disproportionate impact on North Carolina’s African-American and Latino voters. Here are stories of some of the plaintiffs and witnesses in our lawsuit, brought on behalf of the North Carolina NAACP, challenging H.B. 589. These individuals know all too well this law’s harmful impact on North Carolina’s voters of color.
So that one week delay may explain the fall in early voting, although of course not the uneven way that it is falling. I suspect the Clinton campaign is better at GOTV.
If I am right, you’d expect to see a much smaller drop in the applications for voting ballots, and that’s what we see:
Early voters skew strong white and old (favoring Trump) and also female (favoring Hillary.) Requested ballots are 5 times as numerous as accepted ballots.
By election day, 60% of North Carolina voters will have already voted. That means that the outcome of the election depends not just on where the polls are on election day, but also the path of polls over the intervening period. Time to review my calculus book on how to do integration.
Generally I view these snippets of information as somewhat unreliable (recall Dixville Notch?), and this is no exception. It doesn’t address the issue of whether Trump can draw significant votes from independents and Dems. But with all the discussion of “Brexit”-like black swans in the polling, it’s worth looking at the first hard evidence that we have.
HT: Megan McArdle
PS. Nationwide, 410,000 have voted as of yesterday.
Tags:
9. October 2016 at 12:10
A first poll after the lewd video is in (by politico):
GOP voters largely want the party to stand behind Trump. Nearly three-quarters of Republican voters, 74 percent, surveyed on Saturday said party officials should continue to support Trump. Only 13 percent think the party shouldn’t back him.
Female Republican voters support him as well so far. There’s no real difference between male and female GOP voters:
70 percent of Democrats say Trump should end his campaign, but just 12 percent of Republicans — and 13 percent of female Republicans — agree.
I don’t get why 70 percent of the Democrats want him out of the race though. Isn’t Trump one of the best opponents they ever had?
And the race might still be open:
Still, the race on the eve of the debate remains both close and volatile. Clinton’s 4-point lead on the initial ballot test is slightly smaller than her 6-point edge on the four-way ballot in last week’s
They think they need to write this bull about the race being still open, I guess.
I assume, they fear a result like in Great Britain and Colombia. =)
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/politico-morning-consult-poll-229394
9. October 2016 at 12:23
Joel Benenson (the chief strategist of Clinton’s campaign) is bragging on the biggest German news site, that there’s hot video material from all the things Trump has ever said over the years. And I assume they are stockpiling it, just in case one last American is thinking that Hillary would not be the correct choice. Clever boy.
9. October 2016 at 12:23
Hard to tell anything before the vote is all in. Yes, Great Britain and Colombia demonstrate that. People distrust government a lot. And the media. How much do they trust pollsters, is a question.
9. October 2016 at 12:31
Hi Scott,
The Brennan Center has “a comprehensive list of social science research on the impact of voter identification restrictions”:
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/research-and-publications-voter-id
I haven’t gone through it in detail recently, but I recall from 4 years ago that the Brennan Center estimated an impact, all things considered, of something in the range of maybe a 0.5 to 2 percentage point depression of voter turnout, including both Republicans and Democrats. That’s big enough to be important, but I doubt it could cause even a 1-point swing in Trump’s favor in NC, *maybe* 1.5 at the most. And that’s before factoring in any effect that such laws have on people’s motivations to go out and vote.
Voter ID matters, but GOTV and every other factor matter way more.
538 has Hillary at a 65% chance of winning NC, and betting markets are much more optimistic (~80%).
9. October 2016 at 12:35
PS — See also this map: http://i0.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/darr-campaign-offices-3.png
9. October 2016 at 12:38
“my reaction to the emails suggesting Hillary Clinton is more neoliberal in private than in public”
https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/785181802256359424
9. October 2016 at 12:42
“Nearly three-quarters of Republican voters, 74 percent, surveyed on Saturday said party officials should continue to support Trump. Only 13 percent think the party shouldn’t back him.”
Not surprising at all to me. Trump isn’t a man to most of his supporters. He’s a symbol. People support him because their active imaginations say he is the anti-establishment candidate who will change for the better absolutely everything that is wrong with establishment politics, LOL.
They just didn’t notice that Congress makes the laws, and that Congress is controlled by the GOP establishment which is owned by the likes of the Koch brothers, the military industrial complex companies, and various other mega-corporations who have paid Congress to keep doing business as usual.
If we really want change, we’d have to look for Congress candidates who would pledge to vote for public financing of elections, so that Congress would be free to do the people’s will, not the will of their biggest donors.
And if we really wanted change, we’d have to stop believing the propaganda “news” and “facts” that is paid for by the campaign donors. Voters believe this, and as a result they vote over and over again, for Congress members who will screw them over. Big Money in politics would make no difference, if voters didn’t so easily believe lies.
But no one wants to bother with all of that. It’s too hard for infants like typical Americans are. So they’ll just hate on the politicians whom they themselves elected, rather than electing a Congress they can be proud of. And they’ll just love non-politicians as long as they’re flamboyant narcissistic billionaire bullies, and vote for one of those for president– even though he has a history of cheating many people, and of never helping anyone except himself during his entire life. All he has to do is tell them what they like to hear, and the voters are his– At least the GOP ones.
9. October 2016 at 13:23
which is owned by the likes of the Koch brothers, the military industrial complex companies, and various other mega-corporations who have paid Congress to keep doing business as usual.
Your conspiracy theories are a bit tiresome. Let’s assume your funny conspiracy theory is true then why do you take Hillary out of the equation? Clinton was paid upwards of $400,000 per speech by the big Wall Street banks and earned more than $22 million with her “speeches” in just 1-2 years after resigning as secretary of state. Why would you bribe hundreds members of Congress when you can just bribe one? How risky is it to bribe hundreds of different people?
Not surprising at all to me. Trump isn’t a man to most of his supporters. He’s a symbol.
`
That part is correct. He’s a symbol in a war that’s mostly about culture. There’s a big partisan divide in the US – and in Europe as well. I don’t even think this is so unusual. And no my explanation for this divide is not that the other side must be stupid. You are simplifying too much. It’s mostly about interests.
9. October 2016 at 13:41
So there’s a Democratic advantage in accepted ballots and a Republican advantage in requested ballots. So Clinton’s advantage is eroding. I agree North Carolina is an absolutely crucial state in this race.
9. October 2016 at 13:41
Christian, You must know nothing about politics if you think the first poll after a scandal means anything. Right now, very few people know that Trump is bragging about getting away with sexual assault because he’s famous. But they will. (People are not very smart.)
I think Hillary knows she’s got the election in the bag (assuming those rumors about tapes of Trump’s racist comments are true.) Now she’s focusing on Congress, as the GOP forms a circular firing squad, led by a Presidential candidate with zero loyalty to the GOP, from day one.
All of this is brought to us by Trump’s primary voters–the “deplorables”.
Jacob, I agree.
Travis, Let’s hope so.
9. October 2016 at 13:42
Harding, You said:
“So there’s a Democratic advantage in accepted ballots and a Republican advantage in requested ballots.”
No, look again, there’s a clear Dem advantage in both. You need to use relative swings since 2012.
9. October 2016 at 13:45
My funny conspiracy theory? Right, there is no Big Money in politics at all– on Jupiter, since that must be where you live.
Presidential candidates and Congressional candidates are usually beholden to some big donors. Trump gets less money than Hillary from big donors, so is partially an exception, but he has a history of betraying and cheating everyone in his path to make money for himself alone.
Hillary is no different from the average politician. But Trump is worse, in that he’d certainly use the presidency solely as a vehicle to increase his personal wealth. Hillary has done a lot of good things in politics for a lot of people. Trump has a long history of cheating people in business and of helping no one except himself.
9. October 2016 at 13:50
Scott, it’s interesting, as you say, that the GOP has “a Presidential candidate with zero loyalty to the GOP, from day one.” Easy for that to happen, when the GOP has gotten voters to vote on emotion for decades now. The best candidate at whipping up emotions is not necessarily a candidate that agrees with his party on any of the issues of concern to them at all.
9. October 2016 at 13:54
More evidence of a rising Republican advantage in North Carolina in recent days:
https://www.facebook.com/DeplorableVaughn/photos/a.1785583608388120.1073741828.1785582431721571/1794920380787776/?type=3&theater
9. October 2016 at 14:01
@ssumner
Yes, the Republican advantage in requested ballots in 2016 over the Dems is quite a bit smaller than that in 2012. But, as I’ve pointed out, that Republican advantage is rising. It was 5.5K votes on October 5 and is 10K votes today. Still smaller than the 2012 Republican advantage of over 25K votes, sadly.
9. October 2016 at 19:32
Harding, I don’t think you understand what this data means,
9. October 2016 at 23:56
OT–Wiedmar Republic hyperinflation. Question for the reader: does this look like ‘sticky prices’ to you? No. Money is largely neutral, short term and long.
From Ahamed’s “Lords of Finance” – “Over the next few months, Germany experienced the single greatest destruction of monetary value in human history. By August 1923, a dollar was worth 620,000 marks and by early November 1923, 630 billion.17… Every middle-class housewife knew up to the latest hour the exchange rate for the mark against the dollar. At every street corner, in shops and tobacconists’, even in apartment blocks, minute bureaux de change sprang up, with blackboards outside, advertising the latest exchange rates.”
10. October 2016 at 00:24
@myself – just to be clear: though there’s hardly no sticky prices in hyperinflation, even if there’s 0.01% stickiness, that will debase the currency radically and affect real GDP when prices are changing hourly. But with ordinary inflation this effect is trivial (look at Brazil’s real growth rate since WWII with inflation in the high teens).
10. October 2016 at 02:10
Ray,
“Every middle-class housewife knew up to the latest hour the exchange rate for the mark against the dollar.”
The only reason for regular housewives to need to know the exchange rate is if the unit of account was the dollar, in which case your quote has absolutely no bearing on the existence of sticky prices.
10. October 2016 at 04:29
Jill,
The Koch Brothers and the GOP establishment are not allies. The GOP establishment, like the DNC, believes in Cronyism – they just differ on who the favored clients are. The Koch’s oppose Cronyism and argue for equality, fairness and freedom, all explained at their website: “kochind.com/takingastand/”
10. October 2016 at 04:35
I don’t see how Trump wins. He won’t have my vote or that of my wife and both of us have always before gritted our teeth and voted for the GOP nominee. Not this year and maybe never again. Of course Hillary is not getting our vote either and it is likely no one will. Alas, my only incentive for voting this year would be to cast my biannual protest vote against the Representative of our gerrymandered district.
10. October 2016 at 07:49
Tim Duy:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/timduy/2016/10/jobs-data-keeps-hawks-sidelined.html
“Hawks failed to anticipate that the unemployment rate would flatten out at 5 percent despite steady payrolls growth. This outcome does not fit in their worldview. Fundamentally, they were supply-side pessimists. The recent strength in labor force growth suggests their pessimism was sorely misplaced and undermines their argument for immediate rate hikes. The key elements of the FOMC – the permanent voters – now stand as supply-side optimists and are prepared to hold rates at current levels through the next meeting, and perhaps even longer. A December rate hike is still not a foregone conclusion.”
10. October 2016 at 08:14
@Dan W.: why not do a protest vote for president too, like Johnson? Or write in someone?
10. October 2016 at 09:47
@Jason – I doubt 1920s German housewives in hyperinflation were concerned with unit of account, which is a debt construct. Rather, they are trying to figure out what the price is by converting the German mark, which was in scientific notation, to the more understandable US dollar. Hence sticky prices indeed.
10. October 2016 at 13:13
Christian, You must know nothing about politics if you think the first poll after a scandal means anything.
We will see about that. I think the basic results from this poll won’t change much.
I was a bit surprised by the second debate, I thought Hillary would end Trump but she didn’t. This might be her weakness. She seems to have a hard time finishing off. She lost to Obama, a complete unknown at that time, she had huge problems with Sanders (a senile socialist grandpa) and now she still didn’t took Trump completely out of the race, despite his many flaws and mistakes. I assume she would have a hard time taking candy from a baby.
The GOP establishment looks even worse. At least Hillary hired people like Joel Benenson who stockpiled material about Trump and saved it until the very last days. The GOP on the other hand was unable to find a single byte during the GOP debates that lasted for months. People like Rubio and Bush had millions of dollars to spent and a huge campaign team and did not dig up a single relevant soundbite during that time. How stupid can you be?
And people like Ryan and Romney. They are so disappointing as well. They didn’t even run. That’s just cowardice. Nevertheless they think they can give smartass advice all the time. How arrogant and detached from reality can you be?
And people like Jonah Goldberg. Oh my god. It’s the same thing. Only smart-alec opinion pieces. That’s not a reporter to me. You can say about the partisan hack journalists of the Democrats what you want but at least they are out there and do their job.
10. October 2016 at 21:30
What is already clear is that almost any conceivable Republican candidate other than The Donald would have walked away with this election. It is not even close to an election only The Donald could win (for the Republicans); it is much closer to an election that only The Donald could lose.
11. October 2016 at 04:14
Unfortunately, you are probably not correct in your analysis of the American electorate, Lorenzo. Emotions are driving these results, not reason.
Of all the stupid things Trump has said that do disqualify him for the presidency, it takes a bit of boyish sexual hyperbole to actually trump him!
11. October 2016 at 06:35
Yglesias:
http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/10/11/13176948/labor-force-participation
“We still haven’t recovered from the Great Recession”
11. October 2016 at 07:33
@Lorenzo: I’ve said this before, not only is Trump literally the only Republican that Clinton had any chance of beating, the reverse is true as well. Any other Dem running would have crushed Trump much earlier. He’s still not out of it entirely. 20% chances come in once every five times.
@Patrick: It does seem a bit weird that this was the straw that broke the camel, but I think it’s because it’s not a rumor or a comment made on purpose, it’s a full video of a guy being his unguarded self acting like a total pig. If Bill Clinton said similar stuff (he probably did) and a video surfaced of him saying it, that woulda ended him too.
Many Trump voters knew he was awful but were going to hold their nose and vote for him. This just pushed people too far.
11. October 2016 at 08:00
Any Republican could have won this election, had any been nominated.
It was always obvious anyone outside his cult of personality that Trump’s various gross ethical lapses were going to doom him against even a fairly corrupt conventional politician.
You can see the great sine wave of the American electorate in the projections — as soon as it looks like Trump might plausibly win, the great freakout begins as people contemplate the horror of a Trump presidency, and his support nosedives.
The Supreme Court was lost as soon as Trump was nominated — not only did he have virtually no chance of winning, that list of nominees would have just been more toilet paper for Trump once he’d used up the Constitution.
Worst. Election. Ever.
11. October 2016 at 09:08
Do the transcripts of Hillary’s speeches show that she’s (a) a genuine neoliberal with decent economic intuition or (b) a person with low economic intuition who believes the government should intervene in everything?
11. October 2016 at 09:26
I’m sorry guys but you are analysis is just flawed daydreaming. The GOP would have had huge problems with or without Trump. Let’s go back to the facts:
1) Since at least 1992 all Presidential elections have been very tough for the GOP, except maybe in 2004. I think they lost pretty much all popular votes since 1992, except for 2004.
2) Partisanship amongst the voters is strong. GOP voters and Democratic voters are pretty much fixed, no matter who is running.
3) Hillary would have had good chances against nearly any GOP candidate. You know the narrative of the press: Very first women, so very competent, so much experience, bla, bla, bla.
4) Demographics favor the Democrats in Presidential elections.
5) The press is in favor of the Democrats like at least 10:1, meaning for every reporter that leans towards the GOP there are at the very least 10 Democratic journalists, no matter who is running.
6) The press and the Democratic campaign go back 10 years and more now. About every GOP candidate there’s at the very least one tape out there in which they will say something very damaging and stupid.
You guys really got a short term memory. They did this with Romney, too. Mother Jones bought Romney’s tape about the infamous 47% about one year before the election but they kept it secret until nearly the very end. They clearly wanted maximum damage.
That’s a new kind of journalism. Certain scandals get stockpiled now and are being released only when the Democratic campaign and/or the press think it will do the most damage. Wasn’t there a similar incident in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore? They will do this with every GOP candidate from now on, no matter who is running.
The GOP needs to keep up with these strategies, they need to fight back with similar means or they will continue losing most Presidential elections. It’s as simple as that.
11. October 2016 at 15:33
“What is already clear is that almost any conceivable Republican candidate other than The Donald would have walked away with this election.”
It sure as hell looks that way. but i’m not so sure. A normal election tone might have held down hill’s negatives…
Also what would the repubs have to offer that is very different from what Romney offered ? And is Hill that different than Obama ?
No doubt, deserved or not, Hill carries heaps of invective….but so does Obama…
I really think one of the things that has been winning the national election for the dems is that their new, Obama style tax policy, sells…
hill says no one who makes under 200, grand will get taxed more…and that the 1% WILL pay more.
That sells…
the repubs can’t offer that.. they can’t offer to increase the tax on 1%.
11. October 2016 at 15:47
“Certain scandals get stockpiled now and are being released only when the Democratic campaign and/or the press think it will do the most damage. Wasn’t there a similar incident in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore? They will do this with every GOP candidate from now on, no matter who is running.
The GOP needs to keep up with these strategies, they need to fight back with similar means or they will continue losing most Presidential elections. It’s as simple as that.”
The solution for both parties is better vetting… And we are entering an age where everyone has been so wired in for so long..politicians are self vetting themselves out of higher office in real time.
things may be at their worst now as those who did not know their lives would be public are fading from the field…Dumb Boomers…were all getting old.
hill will most likely be the last boomer president…. Bill was the first… Kinda neat.
11. October 2016 at 18:03
TallDave, You said:
“Worst. Election. Ever”
Finally a comment I agree with.
Christian, Check out the more recent polls coming in, if you want to find out how you are wrong.
11. October 2016 at 18:35
Off topic. Scott a commenter over at econlog made the argument that British stock markets are actually down because you have to measure the value they have lost in terms of dollars or euros. This has been repeated quite a lot online. What’s your view on this? I don’t know why but it seems like there’s something wrong with this argument that I can’t quite put my finger on.
11. October 2016 at 20:56
I like how Christian List is ‘schooling’ this group, with deep analysis, while the rest of the posters flounder with trivial one liners. Christian List should take over the political blogging from our host. Sumner should forget blogging on politics and stick to what he knows best: .
11. October 2016 at 23:36
@Scott Sumner
Maybe we were talking past each other. I was trying to talk about the reaction by Democratic and GOP voters and their partisanship. I still don’t think this will change much. And if it changes then there will be a fast rebound unless camp Hillary is really unloading one relevant tape after another until the election.
12. October 2016 at 01:28
Ryan’s zig-zagging is alarming. He should no cut Trump lose. Trump seems to lose his nerves, too. When they continue to go beserk and start one kamikaze mission after another for the next weeks then they’ll lose the Senate as well.
12. October 2016 at 03:42
‘… a commenter over at econlog made the argument that British stock markets are actually down because you have to measure the value they have lost in terms of dollars or euros. …I don’t know why but it seems like there’s something wrong with this argument that I can’t quite put my finger on.’
The British (and foreigners) will have already factored that into the prices they are willing to pay for those stocks. It’s an efficient market.
12. October 2016 at 03:45
‘Also what would the repubs have to offer that is very different from what Romney offered ?’
Exactly. Obama in 2008 was less qualified for the presidency than Trump is today. Yet, he won easily.
12. October 2016 at 07:04
Exactly. Obama in 2008 was less qualified for the presidency than Trump is today. Yet, he won easily.
That’s too harsh even for my taste. You should phrase it in another way: Romney was way more qualified than Trump but he still lost. Obama was worse than Hillary but he still won. From those examples alone you can tell that the GOP must have more fundamental problems than just Trump.
I think Obama is way more qualified than Trump for example regarding experience, character, knowledge, temperament and so on. What Obama is lacking in my opinion is judgment. He got all this knowledge but his judgment can be very poor. For example in Syria or regarding the deal with Iran. You can only scratch your head about that. What is he thinking? Regarding those examples you can get the impression that he is really naïve.
Despite all this I’m still not too pessimistic about the future. I even think we see real progress. Obama was an improvement compared to Bush, that’s not hard but still. And I think (or hope) that Hillary will be an improvement to Obama. Not a popular opinion I know, but I really hope so and I see reliable evidence for that, mostly regarding foreign policy. We know for example that Hillary wanted another policy regarding Syria and Russia. A policy that actually makes some sense.
12. October 2016 at 10:04
What policy did Hillary want regarding Syria? She currently seems to be advocating a policy of enforcing a no-fly zone. Currently, that would mean attempting to shoot down Russian air force planes bombing Syrian rebel positions.
That doesn’t make any sense at all.
12. October 2016 at 10:18
And is Hill that different than Obama ?
Leaving aside policy, one can point to the fact that Obama pretty soundly beat Clinton. While the average D might pull the lever for any D (just like the average R would pull the lever for any R), I don’t think it’s pretty obvious that Obama has a lot going for him that Clinton doesn’t.
* Regardless of whether I like him, he can come off as more personable, funny, and relatable than than Hillary. Americans want some evident humanity in their president.
* There’s no real sense that Obama is tainted by the sorts of money and sexual scandals that trail Hillary. Nobody wants to deal with that.
* Americans aren’t very eager to have dynastic politics shoved down our throats. We see father/son and husband/wife sorts of political dynasties as something for banana republics. So we’re not going to be very eager for more Bushes and Clintons.
12. October 2016 at 10:46
Patrick, Yes that makes sense. I just seemed like they were moving the goal posts a bit, measuring the drop of an index in a currency it isn’t traded in.
12. October 2016 at 12:23
Wasn’t there a similar incident in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore? They will do this with every GOP candidate from now on, no matter who is running.
Except at that time, the perpetrator was a hack Democratic operative in Maine, not the media itself. The major media have been (at the apex and center, not on the periphery) in the pocket of the Democratic Party since about 1960. Where you’ve had a Republican editorial page, you had Democrats dominating the news pages (a pattern at the Wall Street Journal at one time). However, they used to respect certain rubrics.
I think Obama is way more qualified than Trump for example regarding experience, character, knowledge, temperament and so on. What Obama is lacking in my opinion is judgment.
You’re dead wrong. BO had no executive experience in 2008 bar running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground. After 11 years in various legislative bodies, he was a recognized maven on no area of policy. He published no scholarly work during his years as an adjunct at the University of Chicago law school and did not generally teach consequential courses, only boutique electives. His career as a working lawyer was a brief turn (about 3 years) as an associate at a 12 lawyer firm, doing labor and landlord-tenant law. The most serious job he ever had prior to the age of 31 was a two-year stint as a copy editor at a commercial company which produced corporate newsletters. It’s hard to imagine a more thoroughgoing tyro sitting in the Oval Office.
As for his ‘character’ and ‘temperament’, and whatnot, the evidence indicates he’s by default complacent, spiteful, mendacious, and lacking in basic negotiating skills. Unlike Richard Nixon or George W. Bush, he has no known intellectual interests. His published ‘reading list’ consists of lower-middlebrow dreck.
He isn’t a drunk and he hasn’t produced any sexual or domestic scandals. That’s about what there is to be said for him. You could have said that of Messrs. Romney, Bush the Younger, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, &c. Not that anyone professed to care.
12. October 2016 at 12:25
Leaving aside policy, one can point to the fact that Obama pretty soundly beat Clinton.
No, she won more popular votes. We have reason to believe the Obama campaign engaged in fraudulent practices in Colorado to boot (and, one should assume, elsewhere).
12. October 2016 at 12:31
Ryan’s zig-zagging is alarming.
It’s less alarming if you’ve already realized there was less there there than you suspected. Ryan’s employment prior to entering Congress was in speechwriting gigs and in the offices of advocacy groups like FreedomWorks. He’s a pure Washington creature, and, it is reasonable to assume, responsive to what’s up with his social nexus (which does not include his constituents). The intramural culture of the GOP Capitol Hill / K Street nexus is a poltroon culture and they cave reflexively in the face of media ****storms (abandoning, for example, Todd Akin, a much less outre figure than Trump).
12. October 2016 at 13:22
‘I think Obama is way more qualified than Trump for example regarding experience, character, knowledge, temperament and so on.’
As I’ve pointed out several times before on this blog, Obama was hilariously ignorant of basic economics when he was inaugurated in 2009. In response to a question about the questionable assertions he’d made about his economic stimulus, he (betraying bewilderment) said he thought ‘it was the consensus of the economics profession’ that fiscal stimulus was the way to fight a recession! The truth was closer to the exact opposite.
He said that, ‘profits eat up overhead’. That his insurance agent was remiss in not selling him collision insurance on his $1,300 beater auto in Chicago–in his book he said he could see the pavement through holes in the floorboards.
Then there was his foreign policy. How’d that ‘reset’ button thing work for Russia?
12. October 2016 at 13:38
I was poleaxed at the time (given that Bradford deLong was promoting Sweden’s response to it’s 1992 banking crisis as a possible path forward) when BO said “Sweden had, like, five banks” when Sweden had had 114 banks. I don’t expect a sometime lawyer to know much about economics or finance. I do expect a man confronting some very consequential policy decisions to commission and read briefing books on those subjects. We were all assured, courtesy Charles Fried and Kathleen Parker, that Sarah Palin was the real ignoramus, so I guess it never happened.
12. October 2016 at 14:27
“I do expect a man confronting some very consequential policy decisions to commission and read briefing books on those subjects.”
Yes I’m certain President Trump will be all over that.
12. October 2016 at 19:17
Ann Coulter provides some perspective;
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-10-12.html
————–quote————
Throughout 2009, good, decent Americans who happened to oppose Obamacare were called the name of a gay sex act hundreds of times on TV — and that was just on MSNBC. CNN’s Anderson Cooper made the reference explicit when he giggled, “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging.”
Among the people using this sexual slur were distinguished members of Congress such as U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez and Rep. Barney Frank. Were they fit to hold office?
Going way, way, way back to a few weeks ago, the same media gasping in horror at “p*ssy” sure didn’t mind my being called a c*nt repeatedly on a Comedy Central broadcast. And when I say “didn’t mind,” I mean they thought it was awesome.
….
A few years ago, Sen. Al Franken joked on a Comedy Central roast about producer Rob Reiner butt-f*cking his children. Does Hillary think he’s fit to be a U.S. senator? Is he fit enough for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, but not the Senate Finance Committee?
….
At least this new puritanical standard explains why rappers like Jay Z are banned from the White House. Wait — what?
Perhaps realizing their Victorian virgin act wasn’t cutting it, the media turned to their Pretend We Don’t Understand English method of argument, and claimed that Trump was confessing to having committed a “sexual assault”!
….
Like most of Trump’s bragging, his loutish boast was not intended to be taken seriously, nor was it. Far from whipping out his pencil and carefully taking notes, “Access Hollywood”‘s Billy Bush laughed. The gist of what Trump was saying is that — hold onto your hats! — women like to sleep with celebrities! I don’t know if you’ve heard that before.
….
This is the same media that ran interference for an actual sexual predator in the White House, ignoring Bill Clinton’s serial pants-dropping, groping and raping for nearly a decade, while gleefully vilifying his accusers, and would have been happy to continue if Bill Richardson had become president. Clinton talking about p*ssy was one of his more dignified moments, proudly attested to by his friend Vernon Jordan in a nationally broadcast interview with Mike Wallace.
….
Former Time magazine correspondent Nina Burleigh said of Clinton, “I would be happy to give him a bl*w job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”
….
Asked by FNC’s Bill O’Reilly why he never got around to mentioning that the commander in chief was, more likely than not, a rapist, [Dan] Rather said, “When the charge has something to do with somebody’s private sex life, I would prefer not to run any of it.”
So according to our media, committing a rape is “somebody’s private sex life,” but using a bad word is rape.
Poor Billy Bush has to be fired from NBC’s “Today” show so the media can pretend that Trump’s using bawdy language is a very, very serious offense.
————–endquote—————-
13. October 2016 at 06:23
Ann Coulter provides some perspective;
The gist of her remarks is that liberal discourse is humbug, and repulsive humbug. It is so when the source is almost anyone not named ‘Harold Pollack’. The humbug goes all the way down. Much of what passes for libertarian discourse is humbug in similar ways (or frankly adolescent).
13. October 2016 at 07:22
Alexander, I’ve never understood that argument. Why not measure them in Zimbabwe dollars? Having said that, I do agree that the currency depreciation has helped the UK markets. There’s no “actually”, there are as many outcomes as there are currencies.
Patrick, The difference is that Obama hires qualified advisers. Trump’s advisers are just as crazy as he is. Have you seen Steve Bannon? Trump’s whole campaign is a giant lunatic asylum.
And I don’t think you want to put “Ann Coulter” and “perspective” in the same sentence.
13. October 2016 at 08:12
Trumpistas like Coulter are missing the point. If Trump were a normal, intelligent, serious candidate, and he got busted saying boastful dirty things 11 years ago, it would hurt him a little but not derail his entire candidacy.
But he’s a vicious, incurious, clowny buffoon who didn’t even run for president in a serious attempt to win. He was already loathed and unfit for the office, the Access Hollywood thing is just the icing on the cake, or rather the tipping point where the joke went too far. If that tape never surfaced he would still be completely unfit. It’s not about the tape, it’s the person.
13. October 2016 at 11:02
‘And I don’t think you want to put “Ann Coulter” and “perspective” in the same sentence.’
You’d be making a big mistake underestimating her like that. I’ve researched a few of her books and she’s much more accurate factually than any of her critics. As the denizens at Brad DeLong’s Semi-Daily Journal found out to their discomfort a long time ago.
She’s Cornell and Michigan Law, after all. (Admittedly, she’s unschooled in economics.)
13. October 2016 at 11:10
You’d be making a big mistake underestimating her like that.
You’re making a mistake if you think his statement incorporated an assessment of anything she’s ever done or said.
14. October 2016 at 06:15
Patrick, Then why does she act like an idiot every time I see her on TV?