What’s the “Real” Reason Hillary Clinton Lost?


By now, you’ve been inundated by analyses, explanations, speculation and excuses as to why the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election shocked so many observers. Although some people correctly predicted the outcome, most people, including within the Trump campaign, weren’t prepared for the result.

The examination of data, interviews, inside information and wild guesses will definitely go on for a while. There may never be a conclusion that draws universal acceptance but there are surely a number of most relevant factors.  Whatever consensus is reached within the Democratic Party is of great consequence because it will impact the immediate response to the election as well as election strategies in the future.

For Democrats, the most dangerous path is to focus on Clinton’s victory in the popular vote, point to a handful of anomalous events and conclude that nothing much needs to change.  The candidate gave support to this position by arguing that James Comey’s ill-considered and unprecedented intervention turned the tide against her.  Comey’s letter to Congressional leaders suggesting a reexamination of Clinton emails certainly had an impact, but was it decisive all by itself?  Moreover, was it an October surprise that could have, indeed should have, been overcome?

The electoral college backlash is fundamentally silly.  Everyone knew the rules for selecting presidents.  It’s easy to argue that her popular vote victory undercuts any claims that Trump has a “mandate” but, historically, mandates have turned out to be only whatever a president was able to make of them.

There are some more serious assertions to consider. One, which I certainly believe has a significant measure of truth to it, is that some portion of voters were unwilling to elect a woman to be president.  A related notion is that Clinton carried, fairly and unfairly, a lot of baggage from her long career in public life.  The rhetoric of the Trump campaign and the behavior of some of his supporters at rallies certainly provide support for both of these propositions.

It’s true, however,  that both of these problems were known before the campaign began and should have been factored into the strategy for winning.  The degree of resistance to a woman candidate may have been greater than anticipated but was certainly apparent during the campaign.

As anyone who read my blogs during the campaign knows, I strongly supported Clinton.  I voted for her, contributed money and volunteered in her campaign.  In other words, I was a voter who was enthusiastic about the prospect of electing a woman to be president and I wasn’t troubled by the various allegations against her.

Still, I know lots of Democrats who either supported her reluctantly or couldn’t bring themselves to vote for her.  If that problem existed within the Democratic base, it sharply underscores the difficulty her candidacy had in attracting independents and Republicans.

My point is that the campaign needed to have done a better job taking account of her negatives and the ambivalence that her candidacy provoked.  Instead, as best I could tell as an observer, the primary strategic focus was on turning out the base without providing compelling substantive arguments for why Clinton should be elected.

I know that the campaign produced lots of policy papers and that she frequently urged voters to read them at HillaryClinton.com.  That’s not really an effective outreach program. Moreover, in the early post-mortems, she has been widely criticized for not powerfully promoting an effective economic message.

The numbers, though still not fully in, suggest that the Trump campaign was much more effective at turning out infrequent voters than was Clinton.  He kept winning counties that had gone for Barack Obama in 2012.

In retrospect, almost everyone agrees that this was an election about change.  Trump’s labelling Clinton a Washington insider turned out to be an effective tactic.  Her supporters focused on the value of her experience and dismissed him as an unqualified neophyte.  However, for enough voters to make the difference in the election outcome, the opportunity for change was more compelling than the argument for experience.

Somehow, her campaign never fully caught the mood of the country.  Instead, it focused almost exclusively on demonizing Trump, which was music to the ears of committed Clinton supporters, but fell flat will most other groups.

There’s a lot of talk in the aftermath of the election about the extent to which this is a deeply divided country with everyone living in their own political and cultural bubble.   Experienced political professionals in Clinton’s campaign needed to see and hear beyond the bubble but  apparently failed to do that.

I’m one of many people currently reading JD Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” which describes the worldview and cultural environment of some of America’s white working class.  Trump understood their concerns intuitively while Clinton never tried to either listen or speak to them.  Whether she could have connected is a reasonable question but her base did not produce enough votes to win in swing states that had been blue in recent elections.

At one point in the campaign, Trump argued that African-Americans should support him because “they had nothing to lose.”  My strong suspicion is that that assertion actually resonated quite effectively with white working class voters and may have been one of the keys to his victory.

In the last few weeks of the campaign, prior to Comey’s involvement, the Clinton campaign seemed to get so confident that it was on its way to an easy victory that it started reallocating resources in an attempt to win long-shot states.  Thinking there might be a path to the electoral votes of states like Arizona, Georgia and Missouri, the campaign stopped paying attention to Michigan, Wisconsin and Virginia.

Clinton lost the first two and barely held on in Virginia despite the conventional wisdom that her running mate’s state was a slam dunk.  In a similar blunder, Clinton did not make a single campaign visit to Wisconsin after the Democratic Convention.

We’ll never know for sure if different strategies might have produced a different outcome.  Clinton entered the campaign trying to make history as the first woman president, had some pre-existing negatives, encountered surprises outside her control and bet that promising a “third” Obama Administration would be a winning argument.  Not all of Obama’s voters went to the polls and the prospect backfired with many voters desperate for change.

Maybe the Trump phenomenon, a totally unconventional candidate running at a time of swirling national anxiety, would have prevailed no matter what.  However, there’s a real case to be made that the campaign committed serious strategic and tactical blunders that took an election that could have been won and turned it into a debacle, albeit a relatively close one.

If this analysis is even partly correct,  a  status quo approach that tinkers at the margins will leave the Democratic Party falling farther and farther into minority status.  Demographics have not yet turned out  to be destiny. Groups of voters don’t fall neatly into line; they expect to be appealed to and wooed.

If the Democratic Party has any chance if being competitive in the next election cycles, addressing the reasons for its struggling fortunes and for a loss in a presidential election that most people expected to win needs to start immediately.  The same old answers by the same old party leaders are unlikely to produce different results.

Foggy with Occasional Showers



The one point that Americans seem to agree on in the aftermath of the stunning 2016 election is that the country is deeply divided. Almost every other issue reflects that division.

In face to face conversations, on social media and in the quiet recesses of our minds, a lot of questions are being asked. How did Donald Trump, the unlikeliest of candidates, end up winning the presidency? What does his succession to the highest office in the land mean for the future of the country? And what do those who did not support him do next?

You also see frequent references to the stage of grief, groups marching under the banner “Not My President”, and already an increase in racial incidents.  As the soon-to-be Trump Administration goes through the early and inevitably chaotic days of the transition to power, there’s lots of speculation about what each announcement or tweet means for the country.

I want to pick through a few of the questions that I have been wrestling with, some more successfully than others. Despite Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote, I don’t question the finality of Trump’s victory. Had the rules been different, the campaigns would have been different and we have no way of knowing who would have received the most popular votes under different circumstances.

As to the Electoral College, signing a petition to abolish it might make you feel good, but is a political non-starter. The very same dynamics that prevailed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, giving small states added weight through equal representation in the Senate in exchange for their approving the constitution, apply to the Electoral College. There is no reasonable shot at an amendment that would require the consent of those same states.

It is noteworthy, however, that two of the four times in our history that the winner of the popular vote has lost in the Electoral College have come in this century. Despite our concerns about how the Constitution  works for a country so different from the one for which it was written, it’s  hard to see the path to a better system. What we need to concentrate on is not changing the Electoral College, but instead making sure that we preserve and protect the rights and liberties that are enshrined in the Constitution.

Some people are demonstrating against the Trump presidency.  Most of those marches have been peaceful, with a few unfortunate exceptions.  My personal instinct is to demonstrate for causes–preserving Roe v. Wade, protecting the planet’s environment–rather than against an administration that has not yet taken office.  Still, the right to assembly is constitutionally protected and is a legitimate form of political expression.

How Trump won and Clinton lost, two deeply interrelated questions, will get and deserve lots more attention.  I am struck, as I listen to the commentary, that one important factor, one of many, was that Clinton did not make a sufficient effort to listen to and speak to the angry white working class.  Trump’s supporters certainly included racists, but broadly tarring his backers with that label was a significant error.  The history of campaigning includes few terms that backfired more dramatically than her “basket of deplorables” comment.

The media needs to engage in a serious autopsy of its performance.  Until late in the campaign, too much of the coverage treated Trump as entertainment and ratings rather than a potential president.  He received a huge amount of free airtime.  There was little to no analysis of how skillful his manipulation of the media was and what a sharp instinct he had for the mood of parts of the country.

Where each of our major political parties stand today may be the most fascinating question for the future of democracy in the United States.  Republicans who opposed Trump for very clear reasons now must decide whether to let him take over the party.  Are there core values or are parties merely vehicles for winning elections? Does the Republican Party stand for something?

The dilemma for Democrats depends on how they interpret the results of the election.  Will they concentrate on Clinton’s victory in the popular vote, the unseemly intervention by James Comey and a series of strategic blunders by the campaign?  That line of thought might lead to the conclusion that little needs to be changed and that merely doing a better job with the same game plan will lead to success the next time.

The alternative is to see Republican control of both houses of Congress, the presidency and the overwhelming proportion of state legislatures and governorships and conclude that a major readjustment is in order.  Even those who greatly admire Barack Obama ought to recognize that the Democratic Party as an organization declined significantly during his presidency.

If, as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have argued, income and wealth inequality is the fundamental challenge facing this nation, why has the Democratic Party failed so dramatically to connect with working class voters who have suffered the most?  How did Hillary Clinton –  rather than her billionaire opponent –  end up being seen as the tool of Wall Street ?

At this point, I have all the worries about Donald Trump that I did during the election.  Designating Steve Bannon as his chief strategist in the White House is a scary and ominous but not surprising decision.  Moreover, many of his campaign pledges would create even deeper divisions and wounds in this country.

And that doesn’t even get us to the issues of national security and foreign affairs.  Secretary of State Rudy Guiliani?  He has neither the experience nor the temperament, but of course that’s what we said about Trump.

There are, to be fair, some potentially more positive signs.  I strongly hope Trump follows through on his promises about protecting Social Security and Medicare.   Engaging in massive infrastructure improvement could have an immediate positive impact on jobs and the economy if he can get the approval of a wary Republican Congress.

President Obama and others are urging us to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.  I’m more inclined to follow Ronald Reagan’s Cold War admonition: trust but verify.



Adjusting to an Unrecognizable Country


It was cloudy and gloomy this morning.  The sun did not come out.

For slightly more than half the voters of the United States, the unimaginable happened on Election Day. I certainly never believed Donald Trump could be elected president until the moment on Tuesday night when the outcome was beyond doubt. Neither did the editorial writers of  the nation’s leading newspapers, any of the major pollsters or the overwhelming preponderance of political pundits.

There will be torrents of analysis of why it happened. My mind is reeling trying to sort out what actually mattered and what was just noise. Single factor explanations won’t suffice but there is also the risk that  the election of Trump was so anomalous that there are no lessons which will be learned.

Everyone agrees that it was unlike any other election we’ve ever had in this country.  However, that observation doesn’t get us very far. Certainly there were warning signs: the appearance of the Tea Party, the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, the rise of right-wing nationalism in multiple European countries. The strength of the Republican Party–controlling both houses of Congress and a large portion of state governments– might have warned us that the Republican candidate would garner a heavy turnout.

Prior to the election, there was lots of commentary about the rapidly shifting demographics of the country and how that was likely to favor Democrats.  It turns out that the backlash to the changing complexion of the United States was more powerful, at least for this election, than the influx of new voters.

Much will also be made, correctly in my view, of the media’s struggle to figure out how to cover so totally unconventional a candidate.  Similarly, we will debate what impact FBI Director James Comey’s inept handling of the Clinton email investigation had on voters.  Whether a significant number of Americans were simply unwilling to vote for a woman is another important question totally separate from any shortcomings of the  candidate herself.

However these various questions are answered, the reality is that we face a remarkably transformed political landscape.  Many see the very real possibility of assaults on our basic constitutional rights, the rolling back of advances in social welfare programs, the brushing aside of the reality of climate change and an increasingly hostile environment for minorities of all sorts.

Internationally,  Trump’s comments about judging the value of NATO in terms of the financial contributions of the other members, his apparent openness to trade wars and his lack of understanding of the complexities of the Middle East have much of the world nervous.

It is incredibly disconcerting to think that I’m in the one who lives in a bubble rather than Trump supporters who had seemed to me so out of touch with reality.   The challenge facing many of us is how to adjust in both our personal and our political lives.

Make no mistake, those of us on the losing side Tuesday face emotional and psychological challenges to regain our equilibrium.  My wife’s first response was to go to her yoga class.  Mine was to head for the keyboard.

A message from my best friend in graduate school reminded me that we had survived what we regarded as a politically unhinged world in the late 1960s.  I wish I shared his optimism about our resiliency, but I agree that it’s a better approach than despair.

Lots of people, including my daughter, are agonizing about how to explain to their children that a man who spewed hatred and bigotry throughout his campaign is now the president-elect of the United States.  A close friend from high school shared a text he sent to his family about the importance of supporting each other.  Many texts, emails and phone calls have echoed that theme.

Most of us will find ways to adjust personally, clinging to family and close friends, taking a break from the intensity of politics that has consumed us for more than a year, throwing ourselves into other causes.

Ultimately, however, the big question is how we respond to a political landscape that seems so hostile to the values that we hold dear.  A lesson that liberals might learn from conservatives is that in politics neither victories nor defeats are permanent.

Doing a much more effective job of getting like-minded candidates elected to state and local offices is one essential step.  Another is resisting the worst instincts of the new governing coalition in Washington.  Some friends have urged that Democrats not resort to the same kind of obstructionism that Republicans engaged in throughout the Obama Administration, but I’m not so sure.   As some Republicans have asked, do we really need nine justices on the Supreme Court?  In addition, it’s not too early to start planning and organizing for national elections in 2018 and 2020.

More painful but also more imperative is the need to rethink the Democrat Party’s appeal to Americans voters across the board.  Without compromising basic values, it’s critical that Democrats find ways to connect with working Americans who were once the backbone of the Party. It now appears that they have moved decisively toward the Republican Party, which strongly suggests that  Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” is the wrong question.

Some may take solace in the fact that Clinton won the popular vote, but the reality is that all of the political trends have been going in the wrong direction.  The Party desperately needs new energetic leadership.  There have been too many examples of party leadership anointing candidates–Anthony Brown for Governor in Maryland in 2014, Katie McGinty for the Senate in Pennsylvania in 2016 and perhaps even Clinton this year –who lacked the ability to win the popular approval necessary for success.

In a perverse sense, I’m quite sure President-elect Trump–wow, that was really difficult to write–will give us lots of material to focus our attention.  Can we respond in a thoughtful and strategic way?   Today is the beginning of our new political lives.  Are we up to the task?


No Way to Run a Democracy



There’s been so much wrong with this election. Far and away the biggest problem is that an unqualified, uniformed and ultimately dangerous candidate has a chance to be elected President of the United States.  All the other problems pale in comparison to that threat.

The factors that have led to Donald Trump being a viable candidate, the reality that both he and Hillary Clinton are disliked and not trusted by significant portions of the electorate, the ugly and vitriolic nature of the race and the ominous possibilities of real instability after November 8 together make 2016 a singular time in the history of the United States.

How did we get to this point?  And more importantly, how do we break the pattern of hyper partisanship, the politics of revenge and demonization of political opponents and the lack of regard for the common welfare of the nation and its citizens?

In many ways, contemporary politics in the United States feels more like the endless animosity of the Middle East or, not so long ago, of Northern Ireland.  A blood feud.  The Hatfields and McCoys.

Our infrastructure is crumbling, many of our schools are failing to educate students for the global economy, generations of poverty go unaddressed, climate change becomes more real by the day yet is denied by an entire political party and racial relations are more on edge today than a decade ago.  Yet, media coverage of the campaign focuses on a Clinton’s email “scandal” that has been investigated for years without discovering any incriminating evidence.

Americans are anxious about the threat of terrorism without being able to devise a rational response.  It’s easier to stigmatize anyone for has a different religion or a different appearance than to figure out what the real dangers are.  Trump offers uninformed simplistic solutions that might well leave us more vulnerable, alienates our allies who are so important to any concerted effort and demonstrates a temperament that would overreact to a perceived slight from a foreign leader.

Meanwhile, reporters have stopped asking about Trump’s emails and his tangled relationship with Russia, issues that do directly impact his fitness for the presidency.  The head of CBS acknowledges that Trump may not be good for the country, but that he is certainly good for the network’s ratings.

In the aftermath of a misguided Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, Republican states are actively working to disenfranchise voters, reduce the number of polling places and construct obstacles to voting not seen since the days of Jim Crow.  Meanwhile, Trump encourages his supporters to become vigilante poll watchers in “certain communities”, his most recent racist dog whistler.

Politicians insist on wearing flag pins, calling on God to bless the United States of America, lining up for tickets to “Hamilton” and declaring that they venerate the Constitution.  Yet, Republicans are already taking about refusing to approve any Supreme Court nominee proposed by Clinton, hinting ominously about impeaching her as soon as she takes office and creating all sorts of rationalizations for ignoring Trump’s lack of qualifications.

Rome did not last forever.  Neither did Alexander’s empire or any of the Chinese dynasties.  Are we losing our capacity for self-governance?  Are we so much focused on the things that divide us that we are unable to appreciate those things that could unite us?

To those who ask why we don’t have a better choice for president this year, consider the viciousness of politics today.  Many smart and capable people would never enter politics because of the personal cost to them and their families.  Whether they have made mistakes or not, they will be subject to lies, innuendos and smears on their character and their reputation.  To run for president today, you either have to be incredibly tough and thick-skinned or you have to be a colossal narcissist.

The outsized role of money and the resulting television ads have certainly contributed mightily to the toxic atmosphere.  For example, as we approach the final weekend before the election, more than $100 million of outside money has poured into the senate election in Pennsylvania.  That doesn’t count the money spent by the candidate’s own campaigns.  As a result, the airwaves are filled with attack ads suggesting that each of the candidates is a corrupt schemer who will undermine the nation’s future if elected.

Let me clear: I am voting for Hillary Clinton, not merely against Donald Trump.  She is certainly a candidate with flaws, but I’m hard pressed to think of any candidate in the history of the Republic who was flawless.  But, even if you really don’t like her, her shortcomings pale in comparison to Trump’s.

The fact that he might win is the most disturbing indicator of how troubled our democracy is.  He is not a rational choice, yet many in this country are willing to cast aside common sense and take a risk so dangerous that it makes you doubt their commitment to the fundamental values of our constitutional system.

Still, buoyed by the Chicago Cubs’ victory in the World Series, I remain cautiously optimistic about next Tuesday’s election, but incredibly anxious at the same time.  I’m afraid that anxiety won’t disappear next Wednesday.



What’s Next?



How many times in this strangest of political years have you said: It can’t get any stranger? And then, of course, something even more unimaginable happens.

The latest. but unlikely the last, development was FBI Director James Comey’s unprecedented intrusion into the presidential election.  Last week, he announced that his agency would be looking into the possibility, without having seen any of the materials, that there might be evidence related to the previously closed investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified emails on a computer owned by disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner.  His decision was made in the face of contrary advise by the Department of Justice, longstanding procedures in the department and all common sense.

While there is lots of speculation about Comey’s motives, the only thing we know for certain is that he has involved himself in the closing stages of an election in a way that no senior governmental official should ever do.

Partisan politics?  Comey is a Republican.  Caving to pressure from Republican members of Congress?  There’s certainly been a constant drumbeat.  Remarkably bad judgment?  He already demonstrated that in his earlier comments on the investigation, so this latest episode is totally in character.  Whatever the reason, history will certainly remember his name .  Discussions about presidential campaigns in the future will all include this act of reckless irresponsibility.

Given the highly polarized electorate, few votes will be changed by Comey’s action.  Trump supporters will see it as further confirmation of Clinton’s dishonesty even though we know nothing at this point that we didn’t know before last week.  Clinton voters may well be motivated to work even harder between now and election day in response to this thumb on the election scale.  Whether it impacts down ballot races may be the even more significant question.

However, as we enter the last week of the campaign, it’s hard to imagine that there are no more revelations or surprises to come, even ones that are  totally fictitious.

Will there be more disclosures from Russian hackers and from Wikileaks?  Almost certainly.

Will there be more women who come forward to describe being groped by Donald Trump?  Seems likely.

What won’t happen, unless the Russian hackers change sides, is that we will learn anything about Donald Trump’s taxes.  And that’s actually quite amazing given the potential conflict of interest issues, the questions about his business dealings in Russian and the doubts about how much in taxes he has paid.

The other question, of whether he has given anything near the amounts to charity that he has publicly claimed, has already been answered with a resounding “no” as the result of outstanding reporting by the Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold.

If the Clinton campaign has been saving any particularly damaging information about Trump, this will be the week in which it gets revealed.  And, as has been the modus operandi of his entire campaign, Trump is likely to make some assertions about Clinton for which he supplies no supporting evidence at all.

And if all of these prospects weren’t bad enough, the ugly contentious mood is certain to extend well past Election Day.  Republicans are already talking about not confirming any Supreme Court nominee proposed by Clinton as well as planning a torrent of investigations.  Trump has encouraged his followers to question the legitimacy of the election.  What actions that might provoke is anyone’s guess, but most of the scenarios are not good.

I’ve been taking a course on Latin American politics and am dismayed by the examples of military coups, impeachment of public officials on highly partisan grounds and the general instability of many of those political systems.  We have always held ourselves out as a model for the rest of the world, the longest functioning democracy.  Right now, our politics seems to be fraying at the edges and it’s not at all clear that there is a center any longer.  As difficult and trying as the next week is likely to be, what follows may be even worse.


Trump for Dictator



Last week, I asserted that the traditional tools of political analysis are not adequate for this year’s presidential election. I want to elaborate on that point because I believe it leads to a significant observation about the 2016  campaign that has not received sufficient attention.

Many observers, including me, have been mystified that Donald Trump’s supporters seem so unfazed by his lack of knowledge and understanding of world affairs, his constant lies and his lack of presidential temperament.  A variety of explanations have been offered.

One is that his backers have been left behind by the economy and are swayed by his promises to bring back coal, manufacturing and a 1950s way of life.  While this may explain some of his support, numerous studies suggest  that many of his supporters are not really suffering economically.

Another interpretation is that his anti-immigrant stance, his racist “dog whistles” and his more recent allusions to an international conspiracy of bankers and elites resonate with citizens who feel threatened by a rapidly changing country in which they will no longer be the majority.  Overt racist signs and language at some of his rallies reinforce this perception as does Trump’s long history of denying that Barack Obama was born in the United States.

Hillary Clinton’s unfortunate short-hand reference to this group as “deplorable” may overshadow the basic truth that some Trump supporters are motivated by  factors such as these.  For them, the important issue is not Trump’s qualifications for office, but that he identifies the cause of their problems, the reason America is not great right now.

A third explanation is that Trump has tapped into a strong anti-government, anti-Washington sentiment in the country.  Polls have for years shown a declining confidence in the basic institutions of this country, not just government.  That Republicans have willfully created a state of gridlock at the federal level only reinforces the frustration.

When Trump promises “to drain the swamp in Washington,” that’s music to the ears of many of his followers.  Those who believe “government doesn’t work” may mean different things by that expression, but they are united in their wish for change, however undefined.

Yet, the polls,  a growing number of Republican leaders and most media commentators other than on Fox and the extreme right view the election moving away from Trump and decisively toward Hillary Clinton.  States that have voted Republican for years are either toss-ups or starting to lean toward the Democrats.

How can that possibly be if Trump has all the answers?    Why can’t everyone see what they see so clearly?

In a world view which Trump has articulated in a way never before seen in this country’s national politics, the only explanation for his losing the election must be a conspiracy of massive proportions.  Democracy isn’t working if their man doesn’t become president.  For people with as much anger and frustration as I’ve described, the logical conclusion offered by their candidate is that the election is rigged.

This circular reasoning as well as all the contradictions underlying Trump’s support can be explained by a simple, but frightening, proposition.  Trump is not running for president; he is running to become  dictator–and some of his followers are fine with that.  The thread that unites these disparate groups of aggrieved supporters is an openness to undemocratic remedies.

We’ve had statements from him throughout the campaign that demonstrate an autocratic approach.  If newspapers are critical of him, they need to be shut down or sued.  Or they need to be threatened by Trump supporters.

If the national debt is getting too large, he’ll default, declare bankruptcy in the same way he did as a businessman and leave other stuck with the bills.  If international treaties and agreements aren’t sufficiently advantageous, Trump will “renegotiate” or just walk away from them.

Laws against torture?  The Geneva Convention?  No problem.  He’ll make America great again by wringing confessions out of prisoners, going after the families of terrorists and obliterating parts of the Middle East that oppose us.  Nuclear weapons?  If we have them, why shouldn’t we use them?

Yet, none of these statements have convinced Trump’s supporters to abandon him.  Indeed, it may well be that  assertions like these are exactly what define his  appeal.

Some, although certainly not all, of Trump’s legions, are really looking for a dictator, not a president.  They may pretend to revere the constitution, but, like Trump, they neither understand it nor is it likely that they’ve ever read it.  In addition to believing that Christianity is enshrined as the official religion of the United States, they see the 2nd Amendment as the only important part of the document.

Unfortunately, there is a historical precedent for a dictator being popularly elected.  Without extending the comparison beyond that one point, it is true that Adolf Hitler initially took power through a democratic election even as he talked of wanting to establish a dictatorship, restore Germany to greatness, and deal with the country’s “Jewish problem.”

Hitler references are always perilous and invariably provoke backlash.  On the other hand, the naivety as well as unwillingness to stand up to him in the early 1930s bear a striking resemblance to how the Republican Party has responded to Trump.  Whether or not you’re comfortable with the historical analogy, Donald Trump is a risk no democracy can afford to take.



How Low Can Donald Trump Go?


Just when we think the campaign has hit rock bottom, the Republican candidate astonishes everyone with a new outrage. This year’s campaign, as all reasonable observers agree, is unprecedented in modern history. The traditional tools of analysis have not been particularly helpful. Campaigns usually have strategies that can be assessed and end up either working or failing.  Trump’s efforts are more a series of lurches and stream of consciousness comments.

Moreover, until recently, journalists were perplexed about how to cover this most unconventional of candidates.  In the last two or three weeks, they have discovered that actually reporting his words can be incredibly effective.  Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz made a serious effort to pin him down on his answers during the last debate and he hated it.  That was exactly the point at which Trump began talking about a media conspiracy against his campaign.

Another difficulty with discussing Trump’s candidacy is that normal language doesn’t do it justice.  Various surrogates have tried frequently to explain what Trump “really meant.”  For example, Mike Pence claimed that the candidate would accept the results of the election and that Trump’s remarks to the contrary just referred to media bias.  A flurry of tweets from Trump immediately doubled down on his claim that the election is rigged.

The efforts to explain away Trump’s language on the Access Hollywood bus are another case in point.  It was just “locker room talk”, or, as Melania Trump tried to argue, “boy talk.”  More astonishingly, she claimed that this wannabe leader-of-the-free-world was tricked into his “naughty” comments by a television gossip show host.  It was refreshing to hear a number of professional athletes point out that the language of their lockers rooms is really quite different, often about their stock portfolios.

What about his insistence that he would put Hillary Clinton in jail if he is elected president?  Is that a metaphor or a literal call to action?  Can anyone associated with the Trump campaign explain how that comment, repeated constantly at his rallies, is anything less than an appeal to disregard or even discard the constitution?

One of the big problems with the need to explain and clarify Trump’s comments is that many of his supporters seem to be taking them as rallying cries to action.  The endorsement of Clinton by the Arizona Republic newspaper has produced harassment and even death threats against employees of the paper.  Imagine threatening the paperboy because you don’t like a position taken by the editorial staff of a paper.

How do you describe a candidate who claims that no one respects women more than he does, but then talks incessantly about whether or not they are attractive? Trump promised to provide evidence that his accusers were lying about his groping and harassment, but so far his best explanation is that he wouldn’t have touched them because they weren’t attractive enough. He even offered that assessment of his opponent after lurking behind her during the second Presidential debate.

Trump has taken lying to a new level, as every fact checker has verified.  Lying actually doesn’t adequately describe what he does.  Instead, he spins tall tales about Hillary Clinton, immigrants, crime in big cities (which is at near record lows despite his claims), the international conspiracy of bankers, Barack Obama’s place of birth (You didn’t forget that one, did you?) and nearly every topic that comes out of his mouth.  He promises evidence of his assertions but never delivers.  It is pretty clear that not even he can keep up with the barrage of lies that he spouts.

Wednesday night is the third and final debate.  It is, hopefully, Trump’s last appearance before a television audience that large.  Given his track record, I certainly can’t predict what he will do or say, but the odds are that he will reach another new low.

It’s not clear whether Trump is even trying to win the election anymore.  His actions don’t make a lot of sense politically.  Some will argue that his non-traditional campaign has continually exceeded expectations and that we shouldn’t count him out.  While it’s not safe to do that until all the votes are in, elections are ultimately about voters and he has alienated many of the groups that he needs to appeal to if he is to have any chance.

In recent campaign stops, Trump has started talking about his movement and how he will fight to preserve it.  Many hear those words and his repeated references to the “rigging” of the election as a prelude to contesting the results of the election.  Unfortunately, whether or not he means that, some of his supporters will think that it’s time to man the barricades, get out the pitchforks (and the guns), attack people who don’t look like them and “make America great again.”

I actually think Trump is just trying to rationalize away an electoral loss that may well be of historical proportions.  His ego, which seems large but is actually incredibly fragile, wouldn’t allow him to acknowledge that he actually lost.  The only acceptable explanation is some devious conspiracy to steal what is rightfully his.

A sad fact is that Trump probably doesn’t really care that much.  He can, as he has said, go back to his very comfortable and self-indulgent life.  There is considerable speculation that his real end-game is to create a new media empire with his buddy Roger Ailes.

The suckers in this story are his supporters who went along on the ride thinking he was their knight in shining armor.  A few years ago, we were told that the Tea Party arose out of conservatives’ unhappiness  with Republicans consistently failing to deliver on their election promises. How will they react if they realize that their carnival barker has just played them for saps again?

Trump Unshackled



He had me fooled.  Prior to Donald Trump proclaiming last week that he was now unshackled and free to run his campaign in the way that he really wanted to, I had thought he was the most undisciplined, most unfiltered, and least constrained political candidate I had ever seen.

Trump’s declaration of freedom seems to have been provoked by Paul Ryan, John McCain and some other prominent Republicans abandoning his campaign in the aftermath of two weeks of unravelling.  The high–no, low–point came with the revelation of a tape capturing Trump bragging about groping women whenever he felt like it.

The only surprising thing about the reactions to the tape was that some Republicans were surprised by it.  Trump throughout the campaign has demeaned women, African-Americans, Mexicans, refugees, Muslims, a disable reporter and just about anyone who came within his sight.  His campaign has been nasty, coarse, filled with lies and intended to appeal to people’s worse instinct.  Despite that history, it apparently took language that was sexually explicit to put some former supporters over the edge.

Now Trump has a new group to attack, Republicans who refuse to fall in line.  In his attacks on the politically unfaithful, he is blasting holes in what remains of the Republican Party, creating what some observers have described as a civil war.  Even as it looks more likely that he will lose decisively in November, the aftershocks are likely to reverberate for months if not years.

Meantime we can speculate about what an unshackled Trump will do in the days between now and November 8.  Recognizing that he has run the most unconventional campaign in modern history, we can still be pretty confident about some of the coming attractions.  He will almost certainly continue to attack Bill Clinton, getting increasingly graphic over time. Count also on more stunts involving the four women allegedly harassed by the former president.

Trump has gotten enthusiastic response to his wildly irresponsible call to put Hillary Clinton in jail after he becomes president.  He is likely to hammer that theme with more claims about her unproven transgressions.  This particular spectacle puts a lie to the claim by Trump and his supporters that they venerate the constitution.

Perhaps even more irresponsibly, Trump will continue to raise the specter of a rigged election with its overt racial overtones.  His not-at-all veiled references to voter fraud by black Philadelphia residents is likely to be just the opening salvo.  He may, however, find it difficult to blame inner city voters when he loses Utah.

In what will surely be a counterproductive effort, some of his supporters are now tweeting about the need to repeal the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote.  That call will only add to the gender gap, in which Trump trails Clinton by staggering percentages.

Additionally, you can count on Trump ratcheting up the number and outlandishness of his lies.  To say that he has an uneasy relationship with the truth would give him too much credit.  Trump lied continuously at the second debate, which made it no different from the rest of the campaign.

As one of so many examples, he has been briefed by intelligence officials on the fact that the Russians are responsible for the hacking of the Democratic Party, but continues to assert that it could be could be anyone.  That claim serves as a reminder to listeners of his strange admiration for the Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin.

The list of lies is almost endless.  Trying to catalog them is actually beyond the scope of even the most diligent fact checker.

I’m afraid that what I’ve done up to now is barely scratch the surface of what’s in store for us.  In the words of a song that was popular during the 1979 run of the Baltimore Orioles to the World Series, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

We are likely to be bombarded with a constant volley of conspiracy theories, many of which have been lurking in the recesses of the alt.right. If he hadn’t already used it, we might well be hearing that Hillary Clinton was born in Kenya.  We may well hear about her secret ties to ISIS.

The effect of an unshackled Trump will make his election even less likely, will seriously damage Republican prospects in the Senate and maybe even in the House and leave the Party in total disarray.

It’s also likely to disgust voters.  To the extent that those voters turn away from the Man in Orange, it could lead to a landslide victory that sets the stage for a more constructive phase of American politics.  The danger for the Clinton campaign, however, is that her supporters view her election as a sure thing and not bother to vote.  The second risk is that an apparently one-sided election may allow some people to feel like there’s no cost to voting for Gary Johnson.  Trump poses too great a danger to democratic government for either of those indulgences.

That’s why it’s so important that Clinton, her campaign, and all of her supporters continue to go full speed through November 8 with no let up and no mercy.  Elections ultimately are not decided by polls; the outcomes are determined by who shows up.


The Most Disturbing Moment in Presidential Debate History


Given what  happened in the days leading up to Sunday night’s second Presidential Debate in St. Louis, there was widespread apprehension that it could be the nastiest and most acrimonious encounter ever between presidential candidates. After all, the political world had been in a swirl since the disclosure on Friday of a tape in which Donald Trump bragged about groping women.  And that came on the heels of his disastrous performance in the first debate and his unraveling in the days afterward.

The grope heard round the world did come up early in the debate.  Trump dismissed it as “locker room banter”, suggested that all men engage in similar talk and then asserted that it was insignificant compared to the things that Bill Clinton has done.  Trump claimed it was just talk and that he had not actually done the things he boasted of in the tape, an assertion that has already been challenged and that will surely be further rebutted in the coming days.

His supporters will believe him and everyone else will view him as a predator who shouldn’t get anywhere near their daughters.   As much as this issue was highly anticipated in the run-up to the debate, it was actually not the most disturbing aspect of the night.

Trump was widely panned for his boorish behavior in the first debate, but didn’t learn the lesson.  Sunday night, he continually interrupted and talked over Hillary Clinton, even to the point that the moderators admonished him to let her speak.  And, in what can only be described as creepy, he lurked behind her as she walked around the stage responding to individual questioners.  Trump’s scowls, sniffling and head shaking as Clinton talked are, in the bigger picture, not very important, but his handlers surely must have told him how off-putting his actions are.

All of this, however, was standard Trump.  So was his steady stream of lies and misrepresentations.  Despite incontrovertible evidence, he continues to deny that he initially favored the Iraq war.  His characterizations of his tax plan and of Clinton’s bear no resemblance to reality.  Trump’s shaky understanding of the Middle East and his simplistic assertions about how to fix it would be laughable if he were not the presidential nominee of a major political party.  The list goes on but not even these problems compares with one statement he made during Sunday’s debate.

Casting aside one of the most important and enduring features of American democracy, Trump baldly stated that if he were president he would make sure Clinton was put in jail.  As contentious and nasty as presidential campaigns have sometimes gotten, never in our history has that threat been made to a political opponent.  We are not a petty dictatorship.  We are not a country that is just now trying to figure out how to establish democratic procedures.  We have a constitution and protections of individual rights and guarantees of due process of law.

Yet, Trump, in his careless and tyrannical manner, would sweep all of that aside.  You might  dismiss the statement as something said in the heat of the debate without adequate reflection, but, in fact, he has made similar suggestions in other comments.

Trump has talked at his rallies of wanting to lock Clinton up.  It always get a roar from his followers, some of whom are wearing “Hillary for Prison” t-shirts.

Equally disturbing, Trump keeps suggesting that the election may be rigged and that if he loses, it could only come as a result of fraud.  That language itself is dangerous and a stunning break with a history of peaceful transitions of power.  We revere George Washington because he voluntarily relinquished his office when there was no tradition to do that,  a decision Lin Manuel Miranda celebrates in his musical, Hamilton.

Trump shows no awareness of the constitution and its limits and checks on power.  He attacked Clinton on Sunday for not having changed the tax code when she was a senator.  That ridiculous comment shows no understanding of the complexities of the legislative process and the need to persuade a majority of members of both houses to get laws enacted.

Trump’s instincts are those of a dictator.  He talks about what he will do, not what the country will do.  Everything is personal.  And in all of those comments, he continues to reveal himself as a real threat to democracy and to our constitutional system.

Whatever you think of the tape from last week, his stated intention to jail a political opponent is a much more serious indicator of his not being qualified to be this nation’s next president.  Threatening to have Clinton jailed if he is elected president is much more disgusting  than anything he said on the tape.


The Turning Point



When the definitive history of the 2016 Presidential Campaign is written, the events of last week will be seen as the forces that conclusively turned the tide in favor of Hillary Clinton. To put the week in context you have to look first at the run up to Monday night’s debate which unveiled the real Donald Trump to 86 million viewers.

Through a combination of Trump campaign spin and media laziness, the bar for Trump’s performance had been set so low as to be scraping the ground.  Yet he somehow was able go even lower and astonish even his own supporters with his lack of preparation, boorishness, and total unfitness for the presidency.

Before the debate Trump kept sending the message that he was too smart to need the standard debate practice.  In fact, however, even when his handlers tried to get him ready, he demonstrated the attention span of a gnat.  Still,  those shortcomings were not the real problem.

Instead, Trump failed most spectacularly in the attribute that he claimed as a strength, his temperament.  Teenagers have more self-control than Trump.  Young children don’t interrupt as constantly as he did.  For a self-professed expert at negotiations, he kept missing opportunities to make his case.

By contrast, Clinton acquitted herself brilliantly.  She demonstrated her usual mastery of the facts; she never lost her composure; and she managed to push the buttons that brought out the worst in Trump.  Clinton made it look easy and we should give her credit for doing that under incredible pressure.  A cough, too much or too little smiling, a misstatement, and the press, as well as her opponent, would have jumped all over her.  She never gave them the opportunity.

The rest of the week saw Trump unraveling as the negative reviews of his debate performance poured in.  He retreated deeper and deeper into the cocoon of Fox News and into his own fantasy world.  He claimed to have prevailed in a poll that never happened.  He also asserted that he won the debate based on polls widely recognized as unscientific.   And then, to contradict his spin, some of his proxies wondered whether he should participate in the remaining debates.

More amazingly, he kept playing the losing hand of a public debate with a former Miss Universe whom he had demeaned.  Clinton clearly baited him in the debate and he jumped in with both feet, apparently unable to help himself.  Some temperament!  Trump, in those exchanges, including an early morning flurry of tweets, became smaller and smaller right in front of our eyes.

Meanwhile, the scrutiny by the press that Trump managed to avoid during the nominating process is finally catching up with him.  Three stories, any one of which would seriously damage most campaigns, appeared at the end of the week.

David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post, who has been investigating the Trump Foundation throughout the campaign, turned up evidence that the Foundation has never applied for the necessary certification from the State of New York to be allowed to accept charitable donations.  On Monday, New York’s Attorney General ordered the Trump Foundation to cease operating.  While that disclosure is unlikely to dissuade his loyal supporters, it is a measure of the careless way in which he does business.

Potentially more damaging was the revelation that a Trump business explored opportunities in Cuba in the 1990s.  Given his very vocal opposition to President Obama’s recognition of the Castro regime, his hypocrisy on this issue may well undercut his support with the Cuban community in the all important state of Florida.

But the really big bombshell exploded on Sunday when the New York Times revealed that it has obtained partial tax returns which suggest that Trump probably evaded taxes for up to 18 years.  Coming on top of his debate comment that not paying taxes made him “smart”, this is an issue which should persist with real impact through the remainder of the campaign.  How Trump handles questions about his taxes in the remaining debates, if he shows up, will get lots of attention.

Additionally, a number of newspapers around the country, many of whom have never before endorsed a Democrat, came out in favor of Clinton this past week.  While endorsements probably don’t mean nearly as much as they once did, the position of those conservative papers reveals an uneasiness about Trump that is shared by a lot of Republicans.

Trump’s disastrous week is unlikely to change the minds of many of his supporters.  That reality shows just how polarized our politics are today and, even worse, how Trump’s message of racism, misogyny and xenophobia resonates with some Americans.

On the other hand, the stark display of his ignorance, mean spiritedness  and non-presidential temperament will raise the energy and enthusiasm level of Democrats, encourage the uncommitted to realize that Clinton is the only sane choice in this election and highlight the risk of throwing a vote away on Gary “Aleppo” Johnson or Jill Stein.

There’s almost a month to go until Election Day and lots of work to be done, but Donald Trump has managed to make an irrefutable case against his election.