Takeaways From The Election

Design By Freepik

Now that I've had a couple weeks to think about the results of the 2016 election season, including a few conversations with friends, there are several things I take away from the season of our discontent.

My overall feeling about the election is not as dire as what I felt in 2000, when Al Gore had the election stolen from him.  Don't get me wrong.  I think this election will have dire consequences, but I'm at a different place in my life now.  In 2000 I worried about my future; now I worry about the future of others.

The Polls Were Wrong.  Every poll I looked at leading up to the election gave the impression that Hillary Clinton was safely in the lead in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  Perhaps there were simply too many polls, and I was relying on the average among them.  For the odd poll that predicted a Trump victory, most of us were too dismissive of the possibility.  In 2008, I followed one poll, Politico, and it was amazingly accurate about the Obama win.  Perhaps never again will people follow polls quite so closely as they did this time.

My Original Ten Reasons Blog Was Pretty Accurate.  In July, 2015, long before Donald Trump was nominated by the Republican party, I predicted the Republicans would win the 2016 election.  I revised the blog twice at six-month intervals, thinking that Trump neutralized many of the reasons I originally gave, but it turns out the reasons were more valid than my assumption that no sane country would ever elect Trump.  Here's a link to the original blog:

http://tenreasons2016.blogspot.com/2015/07/ten-reasons-why-republicans-will-win-in.html

Only one of the original ten reasons was insignificant.  It didn't matter who the Democrats nominated for vice president, since the Republicans nominated an equally-unknown candidate.  The other nine reasons were quite valid.  Yes, the country is not ready for a woman president.  Maybe it won't happen in my lifetime.  (Many Latino seniors voted for Trump only because the alternative was a woman.)  Yes, the liberal voters were markedly inconsistent and absent.  Yes, it's time for another war (against ISIS).  Yes, non-stop political campaigns hurt Democrats more than Republicans, although it was not the infusion of money, but the proliferation of tabloid sensibilities that controlled the campaign.  And, yes, image was everything in defeating Hillary.

Hillary Clinton Ran A Mediocre Campaign.  Not since Dukakis climbed onto an Army tank in the 1988 campaign have I been so bothered by the campaign of a Democrat.  After a very successful party convention in late July, Hillary's schedule was surprisingly light in August, the first crucial month to solidify her lead.  It was weighed down by fundraiser events and TV show appearances, rather than events where she took her message to the people. Her campaign would produce TV ads that highlighted the many controversies that Donald Trump created, but she was very slow in taking those points to borderline states.

When she did speak before crowds of people, they were usually either congregations of minorities or college students.  She did not adequately address in person the people who were on the fence, like workers in small towns.  She did not address people's fears, and her assurances were reruns of old platitudes-- "where every child will have the opportunity to reach his or her full potential" type lines.  I'd cringe at such moments, because they were lost opportunities to say something substantive.

Another disappointing aspect of her campaign was the overall focus of her speeches.  Initially she spoke about how she would change people's lives--free college tuition, family leave, prison reform--but gradually she focused more on Donald Trump's character and the potential horror of electing him.  She and her team greatly misjudged what was important to the middle class.  They wanted to hear about jobs and defeating ISIS, not about Trump's despicable behavior.

It is ironic that Clinton was the one to run the conservative campaign.  We learned many years ago that running a conservative offense in football when you have the lead is a recipe for disaster.  It lets the trailing team get back into the game.  If her campaign had been as progressive as her values, she would have had a better chance to win.

Hillary Clinton Lost By A Larger Margin Than You Think.  It was not only that Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college by such a substantial margin, but she actually lost the popular vote by a huge margin, if you ignore just five states--California, Oregon, Washington, New York and Massachusetts.  She lost by over 6.18 million votes in the other 45 states (as of November 18).  If you remove the same five states from Obama's win in 2012, he only lost the remaining 45 states by 1.8 million votes.  You'd expect that deficit, given that most of those are "red" states.

The lesson is that you have to keep your losses at a minimum in states that poll against you, and you have to bolster your lead in the borderline states.  Such is the dysfunction of an electoral college method of electing officials, where you can lose all of a state's electoral votes by being one vote short in the popular vote.  Again, Clinton's team focused on the borderline states, like Michigan and Wisconsin, too late in the game.  We should understand that she was a very unpopular candidate in most of the country.

We should also realize that she was uniformly unpopular east of the Rockies, and in that way she did not lose by just a little bit.  States like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa and Florida were all competitive, but she came up short in each one.

The Election Didn't Create Bigots, But Only Revealed Them.  The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is currently tracking 892 "hate" groups in the United States.  I donate to the SPLC--more than any other charity--and so I have followed the crusade against hate for about 17 years.  To think that hate is not widespread and dense in this country is totally inaccurate and naive.  This election did not create new bigots; it revealed the prolific hate that exists.

Trump's success has empowered, to an extent, hate groups across the country, but that "validation" will be a temporary condition.  People want to obscure the hate and bigotry that exists, and that will mostly happen in the months after the inaugural, as the groups retreat into the background of our lives, waiting for another bone to chew.

It was actually a service to the country that this campaign again revealed the heart of American darkness.  I get impatient and bored with movements like Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street (although I agree with them), because they invariably are too narrowly focused and ill-organized, and their protest methods are easy to dislike.  I much prefer the Teaching Tolerance campaign that the SPLC promotes.  If I lived in Montgomery, Alabama, that's where I would volunteer.

Trump Belongs To The Republicans.  Now that Trump is the president-elect, the Republican Party must "own" him.  That's going to be a big problem.  Not only are several of his promises counter to traditional Republican values, but anything can set him off into a Twitter tirade.  I refuse to be embarrassed by Trump, because I didn't vote for him and because I am not in any way associated with his values, but my Republican friends are in a tougher position.  They may not have voted for him, but now their party has to "manage" him.

That's going to be tricky.  He opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and promises to renegotiate existing trade deals (for the benefit of the middle class), but Republicans have always been for free and open trade to benefit corporate America.  He announced a few days after the election that term limits would be a high priority for him, but Republicans hate that idea.  He has cuddled up to Putin, while much of Congress would like to start another Cold War with Russia.  Republicans are licking their chops over all the conservative initiatives they'll drive through Congress, but they must do something they've so far failed to do in over a year--manage Trump.

Another big problem for the Republicans will be the radical team that Trump is building around him.  Even if Trump goes through patches of stability, the first two weeks after the election have seen several controversial appointments made by Trump.  The more bigots Trump appoints, the more bigotry will be associated with the Republican party.  Mitt Romney would be a great appointment for Secretary of State, if only because he is a decent person.  Next to Trump's other cronies, Romney is a downright saint.

Trump's Middle Class Supporters Will Be Hurt The Most.  The middle class did not grow during eight years of George W. Bush.  Wages were stagnant and millions of jobs were lost.  Two wars were started.  Huge tax cuts went to the wealthy elite, not so much to the middle class.  And yet Trump's middle class supporters bought into the promise that jobs will come back, we'll defeat ISIS, be great friends with Russia and restore prosperity to families.

The subject of jobs is most interesting to me.  Trump did a masterful job in fooling the middle class.  He made it a "huge" point that he'd bring jobs back from overseas, but that's just not going to happen.  For one thing, only 3% of the jobs lost in the 2000's went to foreign workers.  Improvements in technology caused most of the permanent job losses, while a stagnant economy cost jobs that have already been recovered in the last seven years.

Another shock the middle class will encounter is that jobs creation through infrastructure bills will be slow to appear.  It involves a LOT of spending, something Trump's party doesn't especially like.  He's proposed a trillion dollars of infrastructure projects over the next ten years.  Are the Republicans actually going to approve 100 billion dollars of spending each of those years?

Trump's supporters will also be disappointed when ISIS is not so easily defeated and when a wall is not built along America's southern border.  In the former case, ISIS is not a place; it's a philosophy.  Stamping out ISIS is like eliminating Nazism.  I don't believe total elimination is possible--only containment and less frequent outbreaks.  Boots on the ground will only drive ISIS to more countries.

In the latter case, the wall would take a decade to build, cost many billions of dollars, need to be maintained and fully staffed forever, and would be obsolete before it is finished.  Preventing workers from coming into the country from Mexico is about as likely as preventing guns from being smuggled out to our southern neighbor.  It is more a symbol of Trump's bigotry to build a wall, and when he fails to erect it, his supporters won't be pleased.  I'm just waiting for the day when Trump has pushed Mexico far enough that Mexico starts aligning with China or Russia.

Finally, the Republicans' move to privatize Medicare will hurt white, middle class workers the most if it happens, and Trump would have to side with the Democrats to defeat that effort in Congress.  The middle class also won't like it when the eligibility age for Medicare is raised, which is what Paul Ryan's privatization plan proposes.  Workers over 65 now won't be affected, but people in their 40's and 50's will be disproportionately hit hard.  The white, middle class workers are the demographic that depends on Medicare the most.  They will be the ones most hurt by a change to Medicare.

The Real Deplorables Were The Non-Voters.  Hillary Clinton described the people who are bigoted supporters of Trump as being "deplorable" (and their bigotry is deplorable), but it turns out the real deplorables were the people who didn't vote and were able to.  Only 54% of eligible voters actually exercised the right and obligation to vote.  A lot has been said about voter suppression, and that certainly occurred, but not to the tune of 46% of the eligible voters!

After his much-publicized demonstrations of not standing for the national anthem, San Francisco 49er Colin Kaepernick then announced that he did not bother to vote.  He lost all credibility with that choice, and he was not the only one who followed such a path.  Lots of minorities, led by millennials, did not show up.  This election had almost a million fewer African American voters than 2012 had!

I just cannot get too excited about an election result where only half the country cares enough to vote.  Even in 2012, only 56% of eligible voters turned out for the U.S. election.  In Australia, where voting is compulsory if you do not wish to receive a small fine, 94% of registered voters turned out for their last national election--40% more than the United States saw in this election!

Of those people who were unable to vote in our election due to voter suppression, I wonder how many are redoubling their efforts for a voter ID this week, in preparation for 2018.  Probably not many.

Some Progressive Ideas Emerged And Increased In Popularity.  Thanks to people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, we may look back at 2016 as the year that new progressive ideas emerged and became more popular.  Before this year I had not ever heard of an American movement supporting free college tuition.  I'd only heard of that concept in European countries.  Paid family leave and significant subsidies/tax breaks for childcare costs have gained more bipartisan support.

It will be many years before progressive ideas are implemented again.  People really need to suffer before they support progress, I guess.  The Supreme Court will be conservative at least for another twenty-five years, and the people to suffer will be those with little money.  A wealthy person will always be able to pay for an abortion or move to a place not so affected by climate change.  Progressive ideas most immediately affect middle- and lower-income families, and so the rise of conservatism mostly hurts those families.

The progressive agenda to help those families will return someday, and the country will look back to 2016 as a benchmark for progressive proposals.

This May Be Good For Democrats In 2020.  One recurring thought I had during the last six months was how hard it was going to be for Hillary Clinton to govern and get things done, until at least 2018, if she was elected.  Because of that (and the economy), the Democrats would probably have been soundly defeated in the 2020 election.  Now the Republicans not only have no excuse for inaction, but they alone will be judged on the success of those actions.

That sets up well for the Democrats in 2020, if they can now focus on local governments, promoting young leaders, and voter registration.  The Republicans and Donald Trump will be associated with the changes that are likely to occur in the next four years, and, even with all that power, solving any problems we have will become more and more difficult.  If the Democrats can groom someone who does not have such a controversial history, their campaign should be easier in 2020.

The Economy Stayed Positive But Will Shift.  Recessions occur every eight to ten years, and it's been eight years since the great recession.  I thought the subject of the economy would be a much bigger factor than it was in the 2016 campaign.  The Democrats made a major error in not talking more about job creation, but the economy stayed hopeful and bright throughout the campaign, much to my surprise.  Had jobs or earnings reports turned sour in the last year, the polls would have reflected that, and the economy would have been the biggest reason for Clinton's loss.

The economy is due to begin shifting to negative numbers in the next year or two.  My financial advisor predicts 18 to 24 months before we hit the next recession; I predict 12 months.  New jobs creation is a leading indicator of a coming recession, so I believe we'll see negative job number in 6 to 9 months from now.

Think about that!  What would be the country's reaction if we began going into a recession 4 months after Hillary Clinton took office?  No matter whose fault it is, the country almost always blames the party that is in office.  If you look at all of the recessions that have occurred since World War II, the sitting president's party lost in every succeeding election, with only two exceptions, when world crises (the Korean War and the Iranian oil embargo) were blamed for the recessions.

In failing to get elected, Hillary Clinton got out of the way of a train barreling downhill.

What Could We See In The Next Four Years?  We'll see a lot of big changes in the next four years, so it is best to prepare yourself for them.  Here are some wild predictions:

• Russia will invade one of the Baltic states, probably Estonia.  Trump will invite Putin to tea to share their views on populism.
• The selective service draft will be reinstated, because we will run low on soldiers to fight the war against ISIS, which will spread to at least three countries.
• We will enter a recession and stay there for the last two years of Trump's presidency, due to several of his policies, including tax cuts for the rich, reduced regulatory laws and a soft job market, in part brought on by the stampede of alternative energy jobs to China and India.
• The U.S. will leave the Paris Agreement, and the Republican Congress will officially declare that climate change does not exist.  Coincidentally, Congress will be in recess for 200 bad weather days per year.
• Trump will appoint three ultra-right Supreme Court justices, who will bring their own guns to court.
• Abortions will return to the "underground railway" of the 1960's.  Planned Parenthood will vanish, to be replaced by the Christian Family Planning and Abstinence Council.
• Mike Pence will attend a first grade classroom to celebrate his favorite cause--the return of prayer to public schools.
• Mexico will enter into a trade agreement with China, and China will build its own wall in Mexico, to limit the import of guns from America.
• Medicare will be privatized, and the Medicare threshold ages will be raised.  Trump will exempt all his relatives.
• Race riots will become commonplace across the country, but for the first time in my lifetime, whites will start their own riots.  Like Greece, working class whites will rebel against stagnant wages, inflation and loss of medical coverage.
• Trump will get another divorce.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  The country will go backwards by 20-30 years, if all of Trump's plans are implemented.  At least some of these wild predictions will come true.

It Is Time For Less Mass Empathy And More Individual Planning.  Progressives are nothing if not empathetic.  We agonize constantly over what could and does happen to other people.  We fear the worst because of how it will affect other people's lives, not necessarily our own.  If my list in the last point made you cringe, let me look at how all of the predictions would directly affect my life:

• Invade Estonia?  I barely know where it is on a map.
• Reinstate the draft?  I'm far past the age when I would have to serve.
• A recession?  My wife and I are very conservative and defensive in our investments, to preserve our retirement savings.  We never count on any growth of the economy, and thus we minimize the effects of a downturn.
• Ignore climate change?  I'll be long dead before my home in California goes under water, and the Florida coast is too far away to worry about.
• A conservative Supreme Court?  That's what we've had for the last 20 years.
• Outlaw abortions?  My days of procreation are over.  I'll contribute to the "underground railway" of solutions.
• Prayer in classrooms?  Our days of public education are over.
• A wall on our southern border?  We're natural born citizens of the U.S., and California will be the last state to prevent the migration of Latinos.
• Medicare privatized?  We've saved a lot for private Medicare insurance and costs, and we carry long term care insurance.
• Race riots?  We're in a pretty safe area that is highly integrated.
• Trump will get a divorce?  I'll send a sympathy card.

In short, very little of what will happen in the next four years will directly affect our lives, and we will help my step-kids through whatever hard times hit them.  We've planned for that in preparing for retirement.  The hard part in this election is seeing how the changes will affect minorities and the younger generations.  Our hysterical reactions do not help those groups.  It serves no purpose to absorb several hours of bleak news every day through social media or news agencies, so I don't do it.  If there are petitions to sign, I'll hear about them through emails and conversations with friends, and I will glance at the New York Times once or twice a day to get important headlines.

I also will not change my behavior toward other people.  I will keep being kind and friendly to others; I will live my beliefs and values.  I will let people change traffic lanes in front of me.  I will strike up conversations with people of all varieties.  I will not attend any church but will respect each person's faith.  I will be especially attracted to people with dogs, because dogs know best.

It is time for a little less empathy and a little more wisdom and planning.  In the same way I could not influence how others voted, I also cannot be responsible for how their votes affected their lives.  My mother had the awful habit of projecting herself into the tragedies of other people, though she did not know them.  That only served to make her miserable; it did not help others.  Rather than engage in mass empathy, especially through social media, I will be empathetic to individuals who need help, and I will continue to contribute to causes that help people, animals and the planet.

My best advice is to not fuel the negative energy in your life brought on by this election, but to plan for the financial and moral recession that is coming.  Practice mental yoga every day.  Be safe out there!

Ten Reasons Revisited (August 2016)

Image from marketing-chine.com

 
This is probably the last in my series of articles analyzing the chances that the Republicans will win the presidential election in November, 2016.  Since my last revision of this document in January, the Republicans have nominated Donald Trump, which was unbelievable to most Americans in January, even though it was fairly likely to happen.  If the party had nominated Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or even Ted Cruz, the following ratings would be significantly different.

I'll list the reasons in the same order and give a rating between "0" and "10" of whether I believe the reason is still valid, where "0" means the reason has been totally discounted and "10" means the reason is perhaps more valid than ever.  All reasons began with a weight of "10" one year ago.  I'll show the current rating, what the rating was in January, and what it would be if any other Republican candidate was running.  Notice the immense discrepancy between the current rating and what it would be if any other Republican had won the nomination.  The preposterous candidacy of Donald Trump has tilted the country away from all of the issues that we face.  It is only because Hillary Clinton is such an imperfect, disliked candidate that I can even continue with this analysis.

(1)  America is not ready for a woman President (now: 1, last time: 5, would be: 5).  Because Donald Trump consistently demeans women to such an extent, and because Hillary Clinton has the reputation of toughness and the respect of foreign leaders, this reason has almost disappeared.  Although there is a conservative bias against women in government (more than 50% of the country's people are women, but far fewer than 50% are its leaders), Clinton has certainly shown that she has the resume for the job.

It is interesting that, when the Brexit vote signaled Britain's separation from the European Union and David Cameron resigned, two women quickly emerged as the most popular candidates for Prime Minister.  Theresa May became the new Prime Minister--a clear signal to the United States that one of our closest allies wouldn't hesitate to have a woman leader again.

If the Republicans had nominated any other candidate for president, they may have chosen someone like Nikki Haley to fill out the ticket, but that was close to impossible once Trump got the nomination.  Everyone in the country knew he was going to choose a white male as his running mate.  Mike Pence is a controversial choice only because he is so socially conservative, but that's fine with Trump.  Donald probably didn't consider choosing a woman for his running mate, and it would have been interesting to see if any woman would have accepted the invitation (except for Sarah Palin).  They'd have to be blind to his misogyny.

In a "normal" campaign, the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman (and therefore perhaps weak on negotiating trade deals and upholding national defense) would have emerged as an issue.  The Republicans would have done it gracefully, but they would have done it.  Although I thought it was a bit risky for the Democrats to continually stress the "glass ceiling" angle during their convention, it was actually a brilliant move.  Trump was backed into a corner over women and minority issues; his only move was to leave the "glass ceiling" issue alone.  Now, if Trump criticizes Clinton as being unfit for the job because she's a weak woman, his misogyny is more on display than Clinton's gender is.

(2)  Two steps forward, one step back (now: 3, last time: 9, would be: 7). This issue's rating has declined quite a bit since January, because of what has occurred in both parties.  Because of Trump's outrageous support of isolationist actions (the threat to leave NATO, walling off Mexico, blocking Muslim immigration, rejecting the TTP, ignoring Putin's aggressions), taking one step back does not look so attractive to many Republicans.  Taking "one step back" now has the aura of retreating, rather than re-imposing conservative values.

The most unbelievable development of this year's political landscape isn't that Trump was nominated; it is that the Republicans have focused so little on the economy, the Affordable Care Act and all of President Obama's other programs.  Trump spends almost no time extolling traditional conservative values, probably because he's not a true conservative.  He's a reactionary, whether it is a conservative reaction or not.

On the other hand, the Democrats have hitched their wagon to the Obama years.  They are stressing the "two steps forward" under Obama, while predicting a third and fourth step forward under Hillary Clinton.  This is really surprising to me, because I thought Clinton would have to dissociate herself from Obama's actions and policies, in order to show a positive, new direction under her leadership.  She has done the opposite.

For this you can thank Bernie Sanders and his supporters.  Hillary Clinton had to move further to the left in order to unify the Democratic Party during the convention.  Thus, the most progressive platform in the history of the country was adopted.  However, lest she find herself occupying an island of progressiveness apart from middle-left Democrats, she then had to stress her connection and alliance with Obama.  So far that is working well for her, because Obama's ratings are quite high right now.

This reason's weighting would be significantly higher (in support of a Republican victory) were it not for the ultra-dark, negative picture that Trump and his allies have painted of traditionally-positive aspects of the Republican agenda--free trade, military service of veterans, standing strong against the Russians, and so forth.

(3)  It's Time For Another War (now: 5, last time: 10, would be: 10).  Donald Trump has done another thing that I didn't think possible: he has shifted the focus away from ISIS onto whatever his daily, outrageous rant is.  During the Democratic convention weekend, the country was not focused on being anti-ISIS, but on supporting a Muslim Gold Star family, who had been terribly criticized by Trump.  A normal candidate (like Mitt Romney in 2012) would have praised them for their sacrifice and diffused the issue immediately.  Trump let his personal venom interfere with the country's active hatred of ISIS.

The issue of the Gold Star family has subsided, but I have no doubt that Trump will continually take his eye off the ball, especially once the debates start.  Americans are primed to fight another war, but this supposed leader keeps wandering off the battlefield.

I think this rating would be an easy "10" if any other Republican candidate were running.  They'd hammer home the evil of ISIS every day and then try to depict Obama (and thus, Hillary) as soft on getting rid of ISIS.  Clinton showed a good resolve to end the ISIS threat during her convention speech.  She came out as stronger in war (to the dismay of Sanders supporters) than people had previously seen.  So, I'm giving it a "5" now, but that could move higher if the Republican candidate focuses more on ISIS or if weekly terrorist incidents continue to occur in Western democracies.

(4)   America's Gun Addiction (now: 7, last time: 10, would be: 7).  The executions of police officers in Dallas and elsewhere have turned the tide of this reason somewhat. Middle America is so pro-gun that killings of children and minorities have not changed their minds on reasonable gun controls, but killing police officers is perhaps different.

This is one issue that is really not affected by whom the Republicans have chosen as their candidate.  I predict it will become more of an issue during the debates, and Clinton will be forced to emphasize her position on gun controls.  I thought it helped her to say that Democrats don't want to change the Second Amendment or take away people's guns, but only to put in place reasonable gun laws.  Most gun owners won't listen to her words, so she should propose new gun legislation that addresses both concerns--protecting the Second Amendment rights and strengthening background checks, for instance.

Expect more Americans to be killed by terrorists in the next couple of months and for Trump to jump on the gun bandwagon once again.

(5)  The Myth of Reducing Big Government (now: 6, last time: 10, would be: 10). Remarkably, Trump has not yet stressed the cuts he would bring to "big government," but I expect that will begin during the debates.  Any other Republican candidate would include promises to reduce the size of government in every speech.  Time after time, Trump finds himself painted into a corner, where a Republican like Rubio or Ryan would have ready answers and alternatives.  Trump says he would immediately pull the plug on Obamacare, for example, but he offers no alternative plan.  That makes debating the point rather easy for Clinton.

But Hillary Clinton is also between a rock and a hard place with this issue.  The progressive platform would certainly increase the size of government in some ways, but she must stay committed to those goals to keep the Bernie supporters interested. Bernie was long on ideas but short on ways to pay for them, except for taxing the very rich.  Clinton must support many of those ideas, such as free college tuition, from a more moderate approach--not simply by raising taxes.

To lessen the effects of the "big government" myth, Clinton should stress the other side of the coin--lowering the budget deficit and national debt.  Huge tax cuts for the rich and corporations will increase the deficit and national debt.  I would estimate that most people are not against big government when it helps them--increased social security, tighter homeland security, lower health care costs--as much as they are against budget deficits and the ever-climbing national debt.  Clinton needs to stress the benefits of big government and how she would attack the burden of deficits and debt.

This is still an issue for Hillary Clinton's rise to the presidency, and its weight would be a "10" if any other Republican nominee were running, but it's down to a "6" with Trump running.

(6)  Non-Stop Political Campaigns Hurt Democrats (now: 2, last time: 7, would be: 10).  With any normal Republican candidate, not only would the "fear ads" have begun to proliferate about Clinton after the Democratic convention, but at least half of the news coverage would be focused on her as well.  However, the Republican candidate is much scarier to imagine as leader of the free world than Hillary Clinton is.  Both parties are expert at spinning events to favor their positions, but the Democrats are handed free material every day from Trump tweets and actions by his campaign staff.

Democrats need only remind voters of actual things that Trump says, while Republicans must try to reinforce their case that Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy.  It strikes me that those are two very different types of negative campaigns.  The volume of material that can be used against Trump is so overwhelming (and self-perpetuating) that it is almost comical--like handing ready-made skits to the Saturday Night Live cast each week, without need for creative writers.

To convince America that Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy, the Republicans have used two issues for over a year--Benghazi and her private email server.  Benghazi is a non-starter, because nine Congressional committees could find nothing she did wrong, and they looked silly in the process.  The email server issue gained traction until the FBI Director said that Clinton was "careless" but not culpable, and then the State Department criticized the FBI for even going that far.  Recently Trump's campaign has begun to focus on the Clinton Foundation, which seems like a desperate tactic.  An Associated Press expose about Clinton meeting with Clinton Foundation donors while she was Secretary of State has been deeply criticized by other news agencies as inaccurate and biased.

If the Republican presidential campaign is to make any further progress, it is going to have to find something negative to say about Clinton's policies.  A majority of people clearly don't like Clinton, but it's not because of her email server!  I maintain that it is primarily because of her personality and the fact that she's been in the national spotlight for almost 25 years.  She's not a good speaker (although her convention speech was the best she's ever made in front of a national audience), and she can get awfully contentious and whiny when she's uncomfortable or misunderstood.

The problem for the Republicans is that Trump does all of that in spades.  Trump is not the great communicator that Ronald Reagan was--or even the communicator that Romney or Rubio is.  He's a terrible speaker.  And Trump gets contentious and whiny at any provocation.  You never get the feeling that Clinton is going to throw a tantrum, but that's the pervasive feeling you get from Trump.  People don't like their candidates to throw tantrums.

I would reduce the weight of this reason to "0" if the political campaign season weren't so unbearably long.  Clinton did not say anything controversial in all of her debates with Bernie Sanders, but there is bound to be something she says in her debates with Trump that will result in negative ads against her.  This may be the only election year in memory where, the longer the campaign lasts, the more it hurts Republicans.

(7)  The Democratic VP Candidate Is An Unknown (now: 0, last time: 8, would be: 6).  As I wrote last time, Fortune Magazine predicted (in 2015) that Tim Kaine would be the VP candidate for the Democrats, but they sure didn't predict that Mike Pence would be the Republican VP candidate.  This point has absolutely no weight now, because of that choice.

First, Pence is not as well-known as Kaine.  Both are senators, but Kaine was governor of a larger state and also is an ex-chairman of the DNC, while Pence was a representative from a smaller state.  Second, the choice of Mike Pence was unwise if only because Indiana is already a heavily Republican state, while Virginia (Kaine's home) is a swing-state--currently leaning toward the Democrats.  Tim Kaine is very popular in his own state.

Both men are described as nice guys and excellent representatives of their parties.  Neither one was in the presidential primary races, so the country has been introduced to both of them as new faces.  When I brought up the idea that the Democratic VP candidate would be a relative unknown, I was assuming that the Republican VP candidate would be one of the other sixteen Republican primary candidates.  In fact, I'm sure that a Jeb Bush presidential nomination, for instance, would have seen someone like John Kasich as his running mate, thus choosing candidates from two swing states (Florida and Ohio) who were nationally known.

But even if that were true, I'd still only weight its importance as a "6", because Tim Kaine is the "safe" candidate--a white, middle-aged male.  Undoubtedly the Democrats felt that one minority person on the ballot was enough this time around.  So, although people such as Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Tom Perez were certainly vetted for the VP slot, selecting Tim Kaine minimized the fact that he is relatively unknown.

(8)  The Inconsistency of Liberal Voters (now: 8, last time: 10, would be: 10). Even though the far-left Bernie legions emerged during the Democratic convention--people who said they'd never vote for Hillary Clinton--the existence of a Donald Trump candidacy scares many of the people I categorized as "inconsistent liberal voters" in previous blogs.  If any other Republican candidate were running, I'd leave this reason with a weight of "10", but I am lowering it to "8".

From what I saw of the staunch Bernie legions at the convention, they looked more like 1960's radicals than Democrats to me.  They are the equivalent of the Republican Tea Party in their radicalism, shouting down others' right to speak and sticking with their unrealistic ideals.  It's my feeling that they did more to unify the Democrats than they did to drive them to disinterest or Trump.

To me, the key to the Democratic success is still the millennials (21-35 year-olds).  Will they vote?  Will they understand the serious impact of electing a president, that it is not simply choosing someone to lead the country for four years, but choosing someone who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will be on the bench for the next twenty-five years?

Black, Latino and LGBT voters are predicted to show up in numbers even greater than what was seen in 2012, but that could certainly change if Clinton is seen as a sure bet in the election.  Even though 71% of Latino voters chose Barack Obama in 2012, a large portion of the 29% voting for Romney were older voters.  The young, voting-age Latino population has greatly increased in the last four years, so Clinton could see a larger Latino turnout than Obama did.  In addition, only 10% of the total electorate was Latino in 2012, certain to rise in 2016.  If Hillary Clinton continues to popularize an immigration plan that provides a path to citizenship for immigrants, that faction of liberal voters will certainly show up.

(9)  Image Is Everything (now: 4, last time: 4, would be: 8). The last time I revised this blog, most of the Republican contenders were still in the race, and so it was still possible to envision a Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush nomination.  Hillary Clinton had recently triumphed in the Benghazi committee proceedings, and the email server debacle had not surfaced to such an extent.

The question of image is the only great challenge that currently exists for Hillary Clinton, because Donald Trump's stance on policy, especially foreign policy, is (excuse the pun) all over the map.  More than ever, the question of image as a threat to her election is everything. And, yet, Trump's image is even worse than Clinton's.  If he can become non-controversial in the last three months of the campaign, this will remain a problem for Clinton up to the day of the election.  But that's a big "IF".

Clinton's campaign team is slowly pushing a more positive image of her, starting at the convention, where she was shown in her promotional clip sitting at a kitchen table in a simple blue and white-striped blouse, which gave her a much softer look.  (Why haven't we seen even one photo of Trump in a casual polo shirt addressing people on the campaign trail?  He is the least-imaginative dresser I've ever seen.)  Clinton's team is stressing that she is family-oriented, and that can only help her image.

The presidential debates will allow America to see Trump and Clinton next to each other on the same stage.  Clinton doesn't lose her focus or get rattled at questions or comments from her opponent.  She has stood up to many world dictators, so there is no reason to think she won't stand up to Trump during the debates.  That is when the country will be able to evaluate which candidate looks more presidential.  I will keep this reason's weight at "4" now, but it could come down during the debates.  Certainly it would be "8" or higher if she were running against any other candidate, one who didn't have such an image problem of his own.

(10)  What Draws People To Hillary (now: 5, last time: 8, would be: 10)?  One thing Hillary Clinton has done since January is emerge as her own candidate, embracing the accomplishments of Barack Obama, but focusing on what she would do next as president.  It doesn't matter whether the issues will pass Congress or how they would be paid for, just as it doesn't matter how a wall between Mexico and America would be paid for.  All campaigns are filled with promises, rather than true solutions to problems.

What people hear now from Clinton are progressive ideas--a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition, paid family leave, increased taxes on the very rich.  If Trump were to focus on true conservative values, rather than pandering to people's fears, the weighting on this reason would still be at least "8".  Clinton is speaking to people's hopes, while Trump is speaking to their fears.  Some people are drawn to fear, but most are hopeful by nature, regardless who is president.  A more traditional Republican candidate, such as Paul Ryan, would focus almost entirely on hope for the future.

Another unexpected boost for Clinton has been Trump's reckless comments related to national security--placing nuclear weapons in more countries, cozying up to Putin, backing away from NATO.  Clinton has stressed more treaties with countries, standing pat against Putin and getting closer to our NATO allies.  Clinton was a tough Secretary of State, and her toughness has shone through on foreign policy issues, disregarding the fact that Trump has paved the way for her.  People are drawn to a strong leader, not a reckless one.

The trick for Hillary Clinton's campaign is to keep her away from the temptation of engaging Trump on a lower level.  I have no doubt that she could go toe to toe with Trump, but that won't draw people to her.  I'm still going to weight this reason as a "5", although I could defend lowering it further.

(11) (Bonus Reason)  Rising Interest Rates - Economy Woes (now: 2, last time: 9, would be: 5).  The United States economy is probably the best economy in the world right now.  Job numbers were very good for July, following a spectacular June.  The Fed has been overly cautious about raising interest rates, but I believe they will be raised one more time this year--too late for that event to impact the election.

But what has really impacted the weighting of this reason is how little Trump understands and talks about the economy.  He wants to redo the tax code and lower taxes for everyone, but he speaks mostly about corporate tax codes and estate taxes, rather than focusing on how lower taxes would help individuals.  Changing the estate tax would help 2 people out of every 1000--not exactly a boon for the middle class.  Clinton hasn't had to even mention how Trump's plans would damage the economy and families.  Any other Republican candidate would focus more on the economy (and thus garner a higher rating).

Trump has also short-circuited his promise that he'd bring jobs home to America, because he has his own trademark products made in other countries.  Trump Ties are made in China, for instance.  The Democrats started broadcasting that fact, and suddenly Trump talked much less about bringing jobs home to America.

If job growth remains moderate and the unemployment rate stays around 5%, the economy will not be a daunting issue for Clinton in this campaign.

Summary.  Of a possible 110 points, the cumulative weighting in January was down to 90, and with Trump as the candidate, the cumulative weighting now is down much further to 43.  If any other candidate were the nominee for the Republicans, the weighting would be 88.

The two party conventions were starkly different.  Each nominee will always enjoy a bump in the polls after his or her own party's convention, but Trump's bump in the polls was half as much and briefer than Clinton's bump.  Much of the Republican convention stressed the policies of exclusion--building a wall, tougher trade policies, reducing our Nato committments--while much of the Democratic convention stressed policies of inclusion--higher minimum wage, free college tuition, immigration reform, LGBT rights.  The contention between Clinton and Sanders supporters was healthy for the party and worked to their mutual benefit.  Those factions came together in compromise over a party platform I never thought I'd see.

When I look at Donald Trump's candidacy, it is difficult to rationalize a cumulative weighting as high as 43, but there are still issues that threaten Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency.  She is not well-liked when she is highlighted alone in the press, but her appearance beside Donald Trump in the debates should provide a more stark comparison.  America's addiction to guns, fear of ISIS, the inconsistency of liberal voters, and Hillary's continued shaky image will be her four main challenges, I believe.

This is the last in a series of articles on ten reasons why I thought the Republicans would win in 2016.  In any normal presidential year, I believe it would be a shoo-in for the Republicans.  There have not been three consecutive terms of office for Democrats since the 1940's.  People are scared of ISIS, love their guns and still prefer men over women for important jobs.  But this is no normal year in our country's history.

Splintering the Republican Party

Copyright TheDailyBeast

I grew up in a Republican family.  My father loved President Eisenhower and voted for Richard Nixon in 1960.  When the Kennedy family emerged and Civil Rights and the Vietnam War became the central domestic topics, my father transitioned to being a Democrat.  Still, many of the country's most popular politicians were Republican--Everett Dirksen, Lowell Weicker, Jacob Javits, Mark Hatfield, Gerald Ford, Henry Cabot Lodge II, Howard Baker, Margaret Chase Smith.  Illinois, where I was raised, had a very popular Republican senator, Charles Percy.

I remember watching the Watergate Senate Committee hearings in 1973, and I marveled at how the four Democrats and three Republicans worked so well together.  I thoroughly admired Senators Weicker and Baker.  Weicker was a liberal Republican and Baker a moderate Republican, both of those ideologies extinct in the federal government today.  Now there are only conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate.  How did that happen?

When my father was a Republican, he was a traditional establishment Republican, who supported capitalism, free markets, less federal regulations, more individual rights, tax cuts and a strong defense.  Those were the tenets of mainstream America in the 1950's, after the dark years of World War II and the Korean War.  Then in 1964, Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater, was so far to the right that he was described by many as a Libertarian, and he was soundly defeated.  He was too far to the right for many Republicans, but still he espoused pure conservative views, without any association with the religious right.  He was famous for saying that he believed in the separation of church and state.  He was easily defeated by Lyndon Johnson.

Republicans returned to power in 1968 with a more moderate choice, Richard Nixon, and he was re-elected in 1972.  Although he moved the country forward in some ways, such as opening up China via ping-pong diplomacy, he turned out to be a colossal crook.  When he left office, Gerald Ford became the first president of our country who was never elected to a national office.  He lost the 1976 election by a slim margin, primarily because of a poor economy, the fall of South Vietnam and the pardoning of Richard Nixon.  But there was another reason why he was not elected.  Serious discord had arisen within his own party, brought about by his primary challenger, conservative Ronald Reagan.

Meanwhile, the Democrats had nominated the unelectable George McGovern in 1972.  His candidacy was marred from the beginning, when he failed to even vet his running mate (Thomas Eagleton) properly, and he lost 49 of the states against Nixon.  In 1976 Democrats turned to a relatively unknown Southern governor for their candidate, and Jimmy Carter was elected.  He was a moderate, smart, soft-spoken man who ran budget surpluses in three of his four years as president, but Carter was doomed for a second term because he raised taxes and was somehow blamed for the Iran hostage crisis.  It's interesting to note that the Democrats were even more divided in 1976 than the Republicans were.  Sixteen (!) people announced their candidacy for the office, and eight of them actually won primaries, including George Wallace, Morris Udall and Jerry Brown.  Carter was the best compromise candidate in a widely-divergent party.

Enter Ronald Reagan in 1980.  In his eight years as president, he set the Republican party on a course that has resulted in where the party is today--fragmented, heavily evangelical, obstructionist and angry.  Conservatives lauded his approach to economics, where he advocated tremendous tax cuts, which he said would lead to economic growth, better jobs and prosperity for the middle and lower economic classes, but his "trickle-down" plan never worked.  The tax cuts greatly contributed to the national debt, and the wealthy never allowed their prosperity to trickle down to the masses.  He ran a budget deficit in all eight years of his presidency.

In addition, most people forget what a bigoted, divisive course Reagan set the country on.  He was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, against the Voting Rights Act of 1965, proposed a Constitutional Amendment to bring prayer back into public schools, was a frequent opponent of abortion rights, and aligned himself with notorious racists, like Pat Buchanan, Jessie Helms and Rev. Jerry Falwell.  The LGBT community still blames Reagan for doing nothing during the first seven years of the AIDS epidemic.

Consistent with these far-right biases was Reagan's belief in states rights--that a state should be able to create a law that the federal government could not interfere with if the U.S. Constitution did not explicitly contradict that law.  It is that concept that brought about the American Civil War and the secession of Southern states, which believed that their laws governing slavery should not be impacted by any federal laws.  The dramatic shortcomings of states rights have always seemed obvious to me, although the Republican party is as much in favor of states rights now as it was in the 1960's.  For instance, the party would like to see the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would throw the issue of abortion back to the states.  Several red states would then ban abortion.

All of these policies brought together strange bedfellows in the Republican party during the 1980's.  The fiscal conservatives were joined by libertarians, who pushed individual rights, and by evangelicals, who pushed religious rights.  They were also joined by all of the white supremacist groups in the country.  Think of what a strange mix that is!  Fiscal conservatives favor corporations and wealthy individuals in their economic policies, while evangelicals are often poor or lower-middle class citizens on the economic scale.  White supremacist groups are against, among other groups, blacks, and yet there are many black evangelicals.  Libertarians believe in a low, flat tax and a very low national defense budget, while fiscal conservatives would spend huge amounts on national defense.  To say the least, this was a confused coalition from the start.

In the early 2000's, the Tea Party movement gained a name, after the original Boston Tea Party ("no taxation without representation"), and a major place in the Republican party.  (teaparty.org was created in 2004.)  Originally it was created with the goals of reducing taxes and the size of the federal government, but over the last several years it has expanded into social issues, such as illegal immigration, gun control and same-sex marriage.  The movement is a mixture of libertarian, populist, conservative and evangelical activists.  They are generally considered the most conservative members at any level of government in this country.

The Tea Party is a logical extension of Ronald Reagan's values, but they represent Reagan on steroids.  Their members in Congress, led by people like Ted Cruz, would bring government to a standstill rather than compromise on any issue.  They would decimate dozens of programs, like Planned Parenthood, that help millions of people.  They would marry government with Christian evangelical beliefs.  They are as much, and perhaps even more, against establishment Republicans as against Democrats.

Of course, the Republican party has brought this on itself.  In the hopes of forever courting more votes, the party has steadily migrated further and further to the right.  Moderate Republicans running for office have been eliminated through a process called "primarying," where they are outspent and defeated by the super-PAC's and lobbies, such as the NRA, which back the more radical candidates.  When is the last time you heard a Republican politician speak out against the power of the NRA lobby?

What I've noticed over the last several years is that the Republican party is increasingly run by fear.  Both parties are run by big money, but the Republicans are much more fearful than Democrats.  They fear the threat of terrorists, immigrants, Latinos, Black Lives Matter, gays and any social program that would help minorities.  The Democrats are fearful of injustice and inequality and wrong turns in the economy.  In a Pew Research poll in 2014, Republicans were much more likely to have a gun in their home than Democrats (49% to 22%).  Think of that: half of the Republican households in this country have guns!

What the Tea Party did provide was a gradual avalanche of reasons why moderate Republicans began to consider becoming Independents or (gasp!) Democrats.  The Republican leadership in Congress did not stand up for moderate (traditional) Republican values, like civil rights and separation of church and state, but went along with the Tea Partyers.  This lack of leadership and conviction has driven the party toward the Tea Party wing, which is one thing that has caused the schism in the party.  John McCain was much more moderate before he received the nomination and was dragged to the far right by Sarah Palin and her friends in 2008.  Mitt Romney, for goodness sake, had implemented Romney Care in Massachusetts, which is strikingly similar to Obamacare, and yet Romney beat a swift retreat to the far right to join his partner on the ticket, Paul Ryan, in 2012.  Neither McCain nor Romney would have dreamed of campaigning for the rights of gays or the ban of assault weapons or the continued separation of church and state.

At some point, a moderate Republican has to say, "Which is more important--voting my party or voting my values?"  Ten years ago I actually considered asking a Republican friend if he would vote for Adolf Hitler if his party nominated that person for the presidency, but I refrained from asking the question, because I thought it would be taken as too much of an insult.  Now the Republican party is on the verge of nominating a man who sounds an awfully lot like Hitler, the author of Mein Kampf, which expressed views of a leader who was all-powerful and infallible--sort of a "Make Germany Great Again" treatise.  That political philosophy was based on the fundamental belief that whites are the superior race, and all other minorities are to be driven away, held down or exterminated.  In a country like ours, which is increasingly more diverse, that position has not served the far-right Republicans well, and now the party finds that its top two candidates--Donald Trump and Ted Cruz--are heavily biased against immigrants and Muslims.  None of the seventeen Republican candidates campaigned loudly for a "path to citizenship" for immigrants, although that would have been the wise, inclusive thing to do.  (A couple of the candidates, like Marco Rubio, mentioned a path to citizenship and were quickly quieted by the others.)

The splintering of the Republican party has thus accelerated in the last year, and I suppose we can all hearken back to Abraham Lincoln, who said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."  Look at the millions of people who are supporting Trump.  They are generally disenfranchised people (to use an appropriate term from columnist David Brooks), who are white, less than college-educated and just scraping to get along, and they believe they've been fooled long enough.  They overwhelmingly feel that the Republican Congress has deserted them, and they do not trust the Republican establishment and elite.  They are not especially religious, although some of them are evangelicals.  They believe in individual rights, but not if those individuals happen to be gay or black or Latino or Muslim.  They are conflicted Libertarians.  They believe in the right to carry guns and in an aggressive, overpowering, conquering military, even though that would ensure large deficits in the federal budget--something Libertarians are against.

However, Trump's millions (and I mean people, not dollars) are probably the most honest, sincere people in the entire party.  They don't speak from the head, but from the heart.  Their leader perfectly represents what they believe in, and they don't hold back their enthusiasm or their biases.  They embody the real splintering of the Republican party.  They have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs to the recession and other countries, and they're tired of it.  Their senators and representatives generally support foreign trade deals and are against spending money on domestic job bills.  Republican Congresspeople do not see the gaping chasm between those two policies, while their constituents have meanwhile fallen into it.

Losing jobs to overseas workers was not a problem for the United States when my father was a Republican.  There was no disconnect between the party's elite and white blue-collar workers back then.  The policies of the party were consistent with the realistic dreams of families like mine.  That is no longer the case.

Ten Reasons Revisited (January 2016)

Image from marketing-chine.com

 
Six months ago, in July of 2015, I wrote a blog entitled "Ten Reasons Why The Republicans Will Win In 2016."  It's time to reevaluate those ten reasons (plus the bonus reason) to see what has changed.  A few things have changed, all in Hillary Clinton's favor, since July.  I'll list the reasons in the same order and give a rating between "0" and "10" of whether I believe the reason is still valid, where "0" means the reason has been totally discounted and "10" means the reason is perhaps more valid than ever.

(1)  America is not ready for a woman President (5).  Even before Nikki Haley gave the GOP's response to President Obama's final State of the Union message on Tuesday, January 12, her name was being mentioned in many places as a likely candidate for vice president, if Marco Rubio is the Republican presidential candidate.  (I first saw her name mentioned in Fortune Magazine as the predicted candidate in late November, 2015.)  She leaped to national prominence in taking down the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state house and in her reactions to the Charleston shootings earlier in 2015.

If the Republicans place a woman on the ticket, then the impact of the Democrats having a woman presidential candidate is greatly reduced.  It would ensure that we will have a woman occupy one of the two highest positions in our government.  America would have to accept that!

Another factor that reduced the validity of this reason was Hillary Clinton's stunning performance at the Benghazi hearing in October, 2015.  Even Republican columnists were praising her strength and durability from that 11-hour testimony.  Republicans did her a huge favor in demonstrating that she was stronger than any man on the committee.  They all had to take lengthy breaks during the proceedings, while she was subjected to non-stop questioning and responded with amazing consistency and grace.

(2)  Two steps forward, one step back (9).  I think this is still the overwhelming tendency of any democracy and that it is inevitable that this country will go backward in a number of areas, beginning as early as 2016.  Recently I've heard Republican spokesmen allude to the fact that we've had too many changes in the last eight years, and that is probably the feeling of at least half the country.

Obama's years have arguably been one of the best eight-year periods in our country's history, but Republicans would vehemently argue, from their point of view, that it's been one of the worst periods.  Mitt Romney campaigned on the pledge in 2012 that he would get unemployment down to 6% by the end of 2016.  Barack Obama has gotten it down to 5%, but there has been no praise from Republicans.

That's one of many changes that have occurred in the last eight years.  What would it be like in the United States right now had a Republican been president during the last eight years?  The following would likely be the scenario:

• No national health care system designed to cover everyone
• Thousands more American deaths in foreign wars, since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would still be raging and/or America would have "boots on the ground" in the fight against DAESH
• Two more right-wing justices on the Supreme Court, rather than Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who doubled the number of women ever to appear on the USSC
• No Planned Parenthood
• New anti-abortion laws
• No equal rights for the LGBT community
• A policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" still followed in the military
• No EPA (or a greatly reduced EPA)
• No global warming initiatives or agreements with other countries
• No Bureau of Consumer Protection
• No Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law
• No nuclear proliferation agreement with Iran
• Little or no American auto industry
• Weakened or no Pell Grants for students
• Higher unemployment and weaker economy, based on much delayed quantitative easing measures after 2008 (i.e., austerity measures embraced)
• A more conservative Fed chief and a "rules-based" Fed interest rate law, almost certainly guaranteeing higher interest rates sooner
• No improved relations with Cuba (...mentioned to me by friend, Tom Moran)

(3)  It's Time For Another War (10).  The hysteria in this country over DAESH, the bigotry toward Syrian refugees, and the failures of local armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to sway Americans to the side of using U.S. force to solve Middle East problems.  Military force is the mantra of most Republicans in Congress, and the glorified patriotism of such actions is narcotic to a majority of Americans.  Diplomacy ranks way down the list of desired solutions, even though it's proved to work better than military force in the last eight years.  Democrats favor diplomacy over war.  Republicans, not so much.

(4)   America's Gun Addiction (10).  More than ever, Americans love their guns, far more than they love peaceful, non-violent solutions to domestic and foreign issues.  The only event that would bring this rating down from a "10" is the nomination of Bernie Sanders for the Democrats.  He is not as anti-gun as Hillary Clinton is.

(5)  The Myth of Reducing Big Government (10).  When the Republicans are not insulting each other at the presidential debates, they are adding to the rhetoric of big government pushing policies on the average American.  Unless Democrats regain control of the House or the Senate, election of a Republican president would almost assuredly guarantee the rollback of several policies that have benefited middle America.  Conservative America is much more accepting of rhetoric and bombast, if the candidate promises reduction of "big government."  Oh well, they'll deserve to lose the benefits of big government if that's what they choose.

This reason still works against the election of a Democrat, because that candidate must defend big government programs, such as Obamacare.  That requires each voter to actually think about other people, which is asking a lot of the average person.

What could bring this rating down is if Elizabeth Warren comes out in support of Hillary Clinton, and Clinton begins to stress the good that big government has done, per Warren's accomplishments and policies.  Bernie Sanders is too far to the left to be believed by the average middle-American, even though his promise to destroy big banks is tempting to many.  Clinton's proposals are much more realistic, and therefore people may actually listen to her.  If she can swing the conversation to preserving Medicare, Social Security and the Bureau of Consumer Protection, rather than destroying big banks, then this rating will go way down in importance.

(6)  Non-Stop Political Campaigns Hurt Democrats (7). This reason has begun to benefit the Democrats somewhat, although I still think it benefits Republicans on balance, because they cater to fear much more than Democrats do.  The vitriolic exchanges among Republican candidates, for months on end, have definitely benefited the Democrats, because many independent voters aren't attracted to the hate mongering evident during Republican debates.  Republicans use name-calling and demeaning adjectives to characterize their party's other candidates, while the worst you'll hear between the Democrats is an accusation that Hillary received Wall Street donations or that Bernie voted against certain gun-control measures--facts that are easily verified (and both true).  I have not heard a single instance of name-calling during the Democratic debates.

As the campaigns continue into the Democrat vs. Republican fight, this reason will probably go back to "10" for the Republicans, because they are much better at frightening people in their ads.

(7)  The Democratic VP Candidate Is An Unknown (8).  Fortune Magazine predicted that Tim Kaine, junior senator from Virginia, would be the VP candidate for the Democrats.  Martin O'Malley has also emerged as a possible VP candidate, based on his debate performances.  Although the Democrats are short on nationally-known figures, the situation is not quite as dire for the Democrats as I observed six months ago.

Of course, if the Republicans choose Sarah Palin again for their VP candidate, this rating goes down to zero.

(8)  The Inconsistency of Liberal Voters (10).  I still think Democratic voters are much more inconsistent by nature than Republican voters.  Black voters are even more disillusioned by the political process, because all the shootings by police in this country have drawn their attention and focus to that single problem and away from the Democratic strengths, such as increased health care for the poor.

I don't see any national issues that are attracting liberal voters to pay attention more, and there are several forces which distract them from important issues.

As I see it, the one thing that could lower the weight of this reason is if issues emerge to mobilize young voters, especially if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic candidate, but Hillary Clinton is.  Clinton needs to stress issues more that matter to young voters and mobilize them as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012.

(9)  Image Is Everything (4). I'm really split on this one, although the subject of image still tilts in the Republican direction, I think.  Clinton's image was greatly enhanced during the October Benghazi hearing.  For the most part, Republicans "telegraphed" their questions, and, therefore, nothing surprised her.  Her only task was to be consistent with her answers, and many news people called her performance "presidential" in her eleven-hour testimony.

Bernie Sanders has also enhanced the Democratic brand by rising in the polls and not making any noteworthy mistakes.  That helps Hillary Clinton develop her image as she fields tougher and tougher questions raised by Sanders.

The Republican image has taken a big hit because of the two current front-runners, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.  Their daily sparring and accusations are drawing the attention of the press and the country, while more dignified candidates, like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, are greatly overshadowed.  I still believe Marco Rubio will emerge as the nominee, and then the image factor will swing more in the Republican direction.  Rubio is very polished and dynamic.

And, finally, the New York Times carried an interesting article today [1/21/2016] noting that Clinton's clothes are no longer a point of interest to anyone.  Now, if only Donald Trump would get a haircut.

(10)  What Draws People To Hillary (8)? One really smart thing Hillary Clinton has done is announce points in her governance plan that she would implement if elected--points that diverge in some respects from Barack Obama's policies.  She has been forced further to the left by Bernie Sanders, and yet she is not as far left as Sanders is.  For instance, she would not do away with Obamacare, as Sanders would, in order to replace it with a single-payer system.

As the two races get down to the final candidates, Hillary Clinton's speaking points will emerge loud and clear, and then this factor will carry much less weight.  The Republican candidate will have the choice of either trying to attack each of Clinton's policy points (a defensive position) or will have to come up with his own speaking points (an offensive position).  The advantage now is that Clinton can reveal her specific policies sooner.  We'll see if she takes advantage of those early speaking points.

(11) (Bonus Reason)  Rising Interest Rates - Economy Woes (9). The first interest rate hike was delayed a month, and there is the hint that only two more hikes will occur in 2016, rather than three or four.  Since the public reaction to interest rate hikes and cuts is often delayed several months past the actual events, this will become less of a factor if the Fed continues their slow roll-out of hikes.  An alternate bonus reason-- and what is much more likely to happen--is that the economy will begin to stagnate, especially with economic woes in China, and the unemployment figure will begin to inch up again.  That would not be good for the incumbent party close to an election.


Summary.  Of a possible 110 points, the cumulative weighting for my reasons is down to 90, mostly because of three things that have occurred since July, 2015.  First, Hillary Clinton's performance at the October Benghazi hearing really boosted her image.  Second, the Republicans had Nikki Haley give the SOTU response, thus bringing a woman to the forefront of possible VP candidates.  Third, while both Clinton and Sanders have presented specific proposals and policies they would implement if elected, the Republicans' promises have either fallen on the side of bigotry against minorities or the side of undoing what Obama has done in the last eight years, neither of which shows positive leadership.

I expect the cumulative rating to hover around 90 through the next six months.  Both conventions will be in July, 2016, with the Republican convention preceding the Democratic convention.  That's probably an advantage for the Democrats, who can use the endless speeches to counterattack what the Republicans present in Cleveland the previous week.  I also predict that it will be the most important speech that Hillary Clinton ever gives, and that speech alone can alter the ratings of several of the reasons I've presented here.