Election 2016 Update 09-20

State of the Election 2016

Bombings in NY and NJ

The bombings have now become political. (That didn't take long.) I still feel, however, it too soon to speculate, so I won't.

Is the Bounce Here

I mentioned previously that there was a predictable bounce in the polls, where Trump pulls even and then Clinton pulls ahead. Also, predictable Clinton's leads in the NBC news polls. We had just started recently talking about bitherism.

However, it's too soon to see if this is a true bounce, because Trump didn't pull even first. Note that polls are now measuring "likely" voters as oppose to registered voters. That could change the trend lines.

In Other Words...

This is just a big "wait and see" day, so you should just take a break from the election and catch up on Netflix.

Trump is Broke

Trump is the Kardashian of Money

Kim Kardashian became famous by convincing everyone she was famous. Trump became rich convincing everyone he is rich.

Once you understand that, the rest is obvious. Trumps marketing strategy for much of his life has been selling his success. It’s a common business strategy. We instinctively imitate the people we want to be, which marketers figured out a long time ago. Rock stars sell records because we think their cool, and we want to be cool. Models sell clothes and perfume because their attractive, and we want to be attractive. And yes, you can also sell success this way.

Trump has always flaunted his success, but you can definitely say he started selling his success in 1987 when he published Art of the Deal. Note that his first bankruptcy was 1991, only four years later. From, then on there are more real estate bankruptcies, but there are also new business based primarily on the idea that Trump is a rich and successful business man, such as The Apprentice and Trump Vodka. In other words, as Trump was failing in the traditional family business of real estate, he shifted to the business of selling the Trump brand of wealth and success.

(I’m getting all of this from Wikipedia, so rather than pepper this post with a lot of footnotes you can just look there).

Now Trump's business is primarily licensing his name.

From here, we see why he is most sensitive when others suggest he is worth less than he says. For once, it might not be ego, but business necessity. This is also, the reasons there is so much discrepancy on how much he is worth. Much of the Trump wealth is based on the value of his intellectual property, the Trump name, which is subjective.

But a more interesting and bigger problem is that we don’t know how much he is in debt. How much you are worth is not how much you have. It’s how much you have minus how much you owe. Trump has never released that information. He could be in so much debt his net worth is zero.

Trump got himself into a sweet position. He is able to sell his name because people believes he is rich, even if he is not. This means even if he his broke, as long as he can borrow enough to keep people believing he is rich, he still gets to make money. Pretty sweet huh. What could go wrong?

Well, you could run for president.

Look, I don’t know that he is broke, but I do know this. If he is no where as rich as he claims, he will never release his tax returns. He will be broke if he does.

However, for us, there is a serious outcome. If Trump completes the election never releasing his tax returns, then we will never see another politician's tax returns again. The Trump candidacy could already be harming democracy.

So, I say this. Maybe he is a rich as he claims. But until we see his tax returns, we should treat him as if he is broke.

Election 2016 Update 09-19

State of the Election 2016

Terrorist Attacks Over the Weekend

As you have probably heard, there were 2 bombs and one knife attack this weekend that are suspected to be acts of terrorism.

My sincere belief is that we should hold off speculation on such matters until there is enough time to digest the facts. So, that's what I'll do.

Let me just say my gratitude that no one was killed and my empathy to those who were harmed and traumatized.

So How Do Terrorist Attacks Affect the Campaign?

In order to keep distance from current events, I will refer back to the Brussels Bombings on March 22.

The conventional wisdom is that terrorist events will help Trump. This is the issue Trump is running on, which usually means when it enters the news, it should help him. But not necessarily. An issue in the abstract has different politics than when it is actually occurring. In other words, Trump has to show he knows something.

If you look at the polling average around that time:

You see that this is the the largest point Clinton as so far gotten, 50.4, and the 2nd lowest of Trump's, 39. This is also the time he said "I have a very good brain" and that Obama "knew something". In other words, he reacted badly making him look less able to handle a crisis. So, the question is how discipline Trump is.

For, Clinton, this is where her recent pneumonia could hurt her. Her acting calm and thoughtful could be interpreted as her drained by the stress.

Do not be confused by standard troupes. "Clinton refused to call it Islamic terrorism". "Trump was too quick to assume it was terrorism" (unless it actually wasn't). These are arguments that only those who have already made up the mind respond to.

The real determination will be if Trump acts to erratic or Clinton acts too political. Otherwise, there could be no effect at all.

6th Reason No One Should Vote for Trump, and Counting....

Yes, We are Finally Talking About the Birther Nonsense

To add to our list of 5 Reasons No One Should Vote for Trump.

6^th Reason: He is a Bad Investor

Trump claims to be a great business man, but in the sense of being a good investor, his dalliance with birther nonsense disproves that.

Here’s what I mean. Let’s forget the racist implications for now (not that it’s not there) and focus on this as a business investment. Say I offered you $10,000, but if President Obama produces his birth certificate you have to give me a $100,000. That’s exactly how a good investor would look at this.

Now only a bad investor would ever take that deal. Odds are you would lose. When Trump publicly demanded President Obama’s birth certificate, he risked time, money, his reputation, and, yes, even his business. If the President ever does show his birth certificate, Trump is humiliated, looks like a buffoon, and would be suspected as having a questionable grasp on reality. The best outcome is Trump is proven as a crass opportunist and potential con man. The worst is that he is so discredited no one wants to ever listen or invest in him again. Whatever 15 minutes of publicity he would get could not be worth that risk.

I mean what was his backup plan? Demand to see his college transcripts? (Oh, wait.)

The only way you would see that as a good investment is if you honestly believed President Obama could not produce his birth certificate. I will not waste time explaining why that is really, really, and I mean really stupid. If you object to that, leave a comment and I will, very slowly, explain why.

Now if you doubt that analysis, then note that’s what actually happened.

One phenomenally stupid investment could be an aberration, but you see the same problem in other statements and proposals. For example, here’s what happens if we look at “taking Iraq’s oil” as an investment”.

Benefit: We gain resources and keep them from terrorist.

Cost and Risk:

• We definitely would have to commit troops indefinitely. 
• Our troops will be in harms ways and subject to terrorist attack 
• Terrorist will be confirmed in their argument “that it was always about oil’ and emboldened. 
• It will spur international criticism 
• Alliances would be endangered, especially those in the Middle East. 
• Countries with oil or reliant on middle eastern oil would be agitated. This means more attempts to gain nuclear weapons and makes other wars more likely

You can see, a bad investment.

So, now I encourage you to start looking at other proposals Trump makes as investments, and I bet you will start seeing the same disturbing trend.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to examine his business practices to better confirmed this trend. The problem is, besides my lack of skill, I need more details, than you can normally get, to assess what the risks were against the potential benefits. The other problem was he made so many other glaring mistake, I could not untangle them from his inability to assess risk. (Like starting an over-priced airline when the clear trend was that people wanted cheaper flights).

However, Warren Buffet does agree with me. During a Notre Dame lecture in 1991, Buffet described Trump’s real-estate failures as just paying more than the properties were worth. ^[1]

Now I know you are asking, how could he be a bad investor and such a good business man. Well, first I’m not convinced he is a good business man, but that’s another post. Second, there are other ways to make money and other reasons to start a business. But, there is another concerning way you can be a bad investor and still get rich. Only invest with other peoples money.

If you can get bank loans and others investors without using your own money, you can put yourself in the good old “heads I win, tails you lose” position. Doing this you can be a bad investor if you are a good enough salesman, and Trump is clearly a good salesman.

For example, you might get banks to loan you tons of money to open casinos, but make sure you can use bankruptcy laws to protect your own money. You might even brag about it. Ever hear of that happening?

This should really make you squirm, because in the scenario of Trump becoming president, we are the banks.

Election 2016 Update 09-16

State of the Election 2016

Trump in the News

We are finally talking about birtherism. Trump is trying to deflect this by claiming Clinton started it. The details of this get complicated, but I believe I'm safe in calling this "mostly false". You can see all the details here.

What is really going (whether Trump realizes or not) is that Trump is setting up a 'retort'. You've probably been in an argument with someone, where they argued back with a nonsensical response (at least nonsensical to you). However, that the argument was nonsensical doesn't matter. In their mind they had a response, so the argument ends in a draw.

The only way to get past such and en passe is if there is a third party.

So, when Trump is attacked with his Birther past, he makes the false claim that Clinton started it. The evidence has been debunk, but even debunked evidence is enough for his supporters. Clinton supporters of course will see this as nonsense and think worse of Trump (if that's possible). Therefore, an issue that was damaging to Trump becomes a kind of draw, to be decided by 'independents'. However, if you are an 'independent', you're soon sick of this and just want to stay out of it. Again, making it a draw. Note that I gave the same analysis on Clinton's "basket of deplorable" scandal.

Though, there was some damage. There was an 'opportunity cost'. When we could have been talking about two policies he just proposed, a new tax plan and paid leave for women, we are talking about his birther past. Potentially, this could also take back some gains he made in trying to show him as non-bigoted.

If I were Clinton, I would forget the racist aspect of this and focus on the nuttiest. The question should now be "did you ever believe Obama was born outside the country?". Anyone that would ever believe such a nutty conspiracy theory is 'temperamentally unfit to be president'. If he says he never believed, he's a con man. If he does, he's nuts.

I have a coming blog that points why this is another reason no one should vote for him, beyond the obvious.

If you haven't read it yet, I would also point out that many are saying Trump was born in Russia.

Clinton in the News

We're talking about Trump now, so hopefully she will have a nice weekend.

Election 2016 Update 09-15

State of the Election 2016

Health Records

OK, He got me. First I wrote that he was showing his medical records on Dr. Oz. Then, he said he wasn't, and I corrected the 09-14 post. Then he did.

Clinton then released her health records like a normal person.

Morning Google

Morning 'Trump' google was him being push off the podium by the pastor of a church. For 'Clinton' a rebuttal against Trump's accusations towards her foundation. For 'Trump vs Clinton', his recent growth in the polls.

There have been some recent reporting on the Trump Foundation that suggest improprieties and conflicts of interest, if he became president. The morning 'google' though suggest that this story is not drawing much attention. The problem is that because Clinton was in government, there were more laws and ethics the Clinton Foundation could break. The Trump Foundation would have to break tax law or commit out an out bribery to push the same investigations.

The biggest effect is that reporters are starting to believe they have been to hard on Clinton and too easy on Trump. Arguments are growing that they shouldn't try to be balance anymore and scrutinize Trump relentlessly. (Go press).

Poll Panic

Trump's recent rise have started to bring anxiety. I am even feeling it, and I predicted it. However, remember the polls reflect days, weeks, or even a month in the past, so these reflect Clinton's bad weekend.

The morning google suggests that negative press is moving back towards Trump, and this could push them down again.

My bigger concern is that so far Trump has only been punished by his "self inflicted wounds", and only then, by his most egregious. He seems to have recently shown more restraint and act more conventional, and he might be able to slide by with a "benefit of low expectations". If so, even proven corruption and bad debating might make no difference.

One potential way Clinton could fight this is to rightfully play the "women's card". Many women know what it's like to have every mistake of theirs count against them, while the chest thumping guy is always excused. This is definitely how she is being treated. Reminding this could keep Trump from gaining his most needed demographic.

Election 2016 Update 09-14

State of the Election 2016

Before I get into the ugliness of the news, I'd like to continue an ongoing meme and show you my favorite "Basket of Adorables" from Karen Tumulty.

OK, enough of that.

Trump in the News

So now that you know my process, I can tell you that the 'Trump' google came up with an article about donors and Paul Ryan. The story was soon pushed out by others, but the main point is that it was not "basket of deplorables' despite Trump's attempts to keep it in the new.

This is attack is now problematic because of Pence's refusal to call David Duke a deplorable.

I made reference to this in the 09-12 update. The "basket of deplorables" argument now has the problem of making us all ask about just what number of supporters are deplorable, and questions Trump not calling them that.

However, this tactic only works when confronted by a Clinton surrogate or interviewer willing to ask. Trump and Pence can bring this up in rallies and commercials with no fear. This now becomes only a way to "rally the base" and build enthusiams, for both sides. For Trump, this is the opportunity to draw in traditional republican voters that are uncomfortable with him. For Clinton, this is a way to bring enthusiasm when she has a problem making her voters entusiastic.

There is also the beginning of an investion into the Trump Foundation by the NY AG, but it's too early to tell if this goes anywhere.

Oh and Trump made a childcare policy speech. Like this would happen? Though, if Trump gets elected, the country will be run by Ivanka, while he plays golf, so maybe.

Clinton in the News

Guess what? Clinton's still sick. The talk now has moved from her lack of transparency (which only reporters care about) to how much medial information presidential candidates should disclose.

Both candidates have said they will release more medical records. Here's the catch. Trump is going to do it on the Dr. Oz show. And, as of this morning, the campaign has stated, his recent test results will not be released.

Now, I'm going to indulge into a little fun speculation. I wonder if Trump can release real medical records. He may have none. Doctor shopping would not be out of Trump's character, and he may have only seen doctors telling him what he wanted to hear. In other words, this guy could really be his doctor.

Dr. Harold Bornstein

Many are Saying... Trump was Born in Russia

Many people are saying Donald Trump was born in Russia. When the Guardian asked him to release his birth certificate, he refused. This spawned further investigation which uncovered evidence that Trump is not a native born American.

In truth, he was born to poor Georgian farmers. However, it was part of the Soviet Union, so the birth certificate was filed in Moscow. Realizing he was born with hands too small for farming, they knew they would starve if they kept him, and he would not survive in the country because of his strangely orange hair. There was a long running superstition that small hands and orange hair came from the devil, and they feared angry villagers would kill him.

So, they bribed a corrupt official that had contacts in the U.S.

Fred Trump realized early on that his oldest son, Fred Jr., had too much good in his soul to take over the family business, so he sought another son who would share his killer instinct. Trump Senior also believed in the Georgian superstition and reached out to the contacts he had made in the U.S.S.R.

Hearing of Juri (Donald's birth name, pronounced 'Yuri'), the boy was taken into the Trump household, treated as family and named Donald Juri Trump. The nature of his birth was kept secret since Cold War fears were on the rise.

To further the secret, Donald was required to die his hair black. Donald kept this up until his father past and then he let it go to its natural orange. Having to live with such a s secret has taken other tolls. For instance, he obsessively asks for the birth certificate of those that get close to him in fear they may also be a Soviet plant.

This proved a mistake because Putin remembered the stories of the strange orange haired, small handed boy, and made the connection. Putin contacted him and told Donald he would keep his secret, only if he would run for president, and if successful do his bidding. In order, for Putin to know that Trump is still in his control, Donald must regularly and publicly complement Putin to confirm his allegiance.

Trump has been doing all he can to not be elected, hoping that Putin will let him go, having no further use for him.

Unfortunately, Putin has been very successful in covering up any remaining evidence, but not before it got onto the internet. This is why we must demand Donald J. Trump's birth certificate and have it examined to ensure it is not a forgery.

Election 2016 Update 09-13

State of the Election 2016

Since most most of the news today is a rehash of yesterday, I'm going to take to opportunity to cover some background.

How Do I Get Updated

My start is to just google the word "Trump", then "Clinton", then "Trump vs Clinton", only looking at what the first headline that comes up. This gives me a scene at what people on most interested that day.

I then check to polls. You should not follow a single poll or try to judge as each poll comes out. Instead, you should look for poll averages. That way biases, different methods, and outliers get averaged out. Usually, I look at Real Clear Politics. And then I take a quick look at the projections at FiveThirtyEight. I;m not looking at these to see who is winning or losing. I'm doing so, to see what effect different news story have had.

After that, I just listen to the news throughout the day. I'll, also, get into the art of listening to the news later. I work in front of a computer all day and need to listen to something while I work. The news repeats itself so much, I can tell what they are talking about by the tone of their voice.

If what I'm hearing starts to sound to bias, I'll switch quickly to a source with exactly the opposite politics. I'm not so much looking to hear the different argument as much as to whether they are talkng about it at all.

How the Polls are looking

On 09-08, I said the polls should go to "+2% Clinton lead". (I actually described this as a 'guess'). Let me go into a little more detail on that. First I neglected to include a "bounce", meaning the polls will go closer, and Trump may even get ahead for a day, but then the polls bounce up towards an average of +2% Clinton. Note this chart from Real Clear Politics.

You should note the diamond patterns. Clinton and Trump move closer and then break away, the "bounce". Before election day, regardless of how they acted before, polls historically move to the "natural" state of only a difference of 1 to 3%. So +2% for Clinton is just me following history.

There's obviously a lot more to this, but I'll have to go into that later.

Election 2016 Update 09-12

State of the Election 2016

Trump in the News

The news on Trump is that there was little news on Trump. Since the media has trouble focusing on two candidates at the same time, there will be this back and fourth.

Clinton in the News

Basket Full of Deplorables
On Friday, Clinton described half of Trump supporters as deplorable, meaning racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc.

Now she did quickly apologize for this (sort of).

“Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that's never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong,"

But, she then followed declaring she would still point to the 'deplorables' supporters and that Trump caters to them. You can read the full initial speech and apology, at Politico.com.

You will notice that Clinton did show empathy and respect for the other 'half'. However, you know that means little in politics. What appears obvious is that Clinton is trying to walk the line between an an apology and still maintaining this line of argument. This means that every time Trump brings this up, Clinton has the opportunity to bring up Trump's 'deplorableness'.

I would say leaders should avoid making attribution errors, so she should have said 'those with deplorable beliefs' rather that just 'deplorable', in both a political and moral sense, I'm also concerned that many Clinton supporters have responded by saying the statement is true. They argue some Trump supporters are 'deplorable' (not hard), and they number close to half (not easy). This is definitely cementing partisan divisions and likely to be problematic even if Clinton is elected. Like Benghazi, this will never fully go away.

I'm not sure how this plays out. At the very least it stopped Trumps loses from his comments during the forum. Also, Clinton loses some of her 'high ground' is the debate. But, there is a danger that this could drive those uncomfortable with Trump to full support of him.

Fortunately for Clinton,this came out on a weekend, and the 9/11 weekend at that. This means the story had three days before most heard of it and included her apology. Plus 9/11 put a semi-pause for a day on politics. And the good is that when talking about this, we aren't talking about her emails.

Hillary Can't Take the Heat

During a 9/11 ceremonoy, Clinton went faint due. Most likely this was due to a recent diagnosis of pneumonia combined with dehydration from the heat. There is even footage of her almost collapsing and having to be held up by secret service agents.

The problem here is that it gives purchase to the 'Hillary's health conspiracy', which now will never die. However, it does crowd out the 'basket of delplorables' and could lay a trap for Trump. If he goes to far with this and acts to smug then the suggestion is that he is happy about her being sick.

5 Reasons No One Should Vote for Trump, and Counting....

Trump is Uniquely Unfit to be President

Believe it or not, I have so far been pretty easy on Trump. Sure I started comparing him to Hitler, but who hasn't, and I was fair about. I even said it in the title, Call Him Hitler But Lets Be Fair About.

Sure, I made fun of his hair and tiny, oh so tiny, hand. And again who hasn't. But I haven't gone on a long rant about his demagoguery and racism. You know I haven't even gone into what gives me Trump nightmares.

And that's was part of the point. I don't need to. Trump is not just unfit, he is uniquely unfit in ways no other candidate has been before. That Trump is a unique is not just obvious but bragged about by his campaign. However, in That Orange Guy Defies Convention I showed that this means he must be more critically judged not less.

Whoever your are there are many reasons you should not vote for him. Here's five.

1. Total Lack of Experience

An election is a job interview. We should treat as such, and so should the candidates.

Imagine you went to interview with no experience on your resume and when asked to demonstrate you can do the job, you answered, "I have a very good brain." Do you think you would be hired? Why should Trump?

At best you would be put in the lowest position and work your way up. The only way is to fast talk past the interview. Trump went straight to trying to be president and has not really shown a reason he should be. This is historically different. ^[1]

Now I know many view his lack of experience as lack of corruption (as if a rich business man could not be corrupt). In fact, government experience and success as a President does not always track, but they all had at least some. Looking at Trump over the past year has shown me why.

2. Sows Distrust in Our Democracy

In Trumps My Man, I referenced how Trump has suggested that his loss would mean the "system was rigged". You realize no presidential candidate has ever said this, right? Even Nixon did not contest a very close election against JFK for "the good of the country." ^[2] I’m talking about friggin Nixon.

Now after every elections there’s some sore losers saying the election was stolen or promoting conspiracies. But fortunately the numbers are few. If too many believed the President was not legally elected our democracy would be destroyed. ^[3] For Trump to even suggest this, endangers the country.

Worse, there’s no political reason to do this. Telling your supporters the election is rigged encourages them to stay home. The only reason to do this is to spare your ego. The kindest conclusion would just be ego driven stupidity, but to me this is just loving yourself more than your country.

3. Not Committed to the Job

In Trump's Utility Function, I showed that Trump’s choices in campaigning was best explained by him wanting to have fun as much as be president. This should make you mad. Why would we want a president not 100% committed to the job.

4. Does Not Learn from History

As I was writing "Trumps Utility Function" I kept thinking, “if I can see these problems with the campaign why couldn’t Trump.” All I did was research a little history and look at how presidents have won in the past. Trump should have at least done that. Plus one consultant could tell him more than I could.

Now I know Trump was campaigning in an innovated way, and I would admit it was successful to a point. However, you still do the research. First, when suddenly your way is not working your research can tell you why and how to adapt. Second, anyone who’s followed politics for two minutes will tell you that what works in the Primary does not necessarily work in the General.

The old saying goes, “those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Trump just repeated every mistake you can make running for president. If he becomes president, it will be us doomed by every mistake he repeat.

5. Lacks Moral Courage

In every election I can remember all presidential candidates confronted overt racism. Sure, there were some subtle messages or "dog whistles", and at lower elections you can't always say the same. But there was always a line, they would not cross and when that point came they stood against it.^[4] In And Now About Racism, you can see Trump did not.

It's not hard. It's run for president 101. You can win without courting die hard racists. The KKK is not popular in the country.

This is important because when racism gets out of hand, it leads to violence. There's a reason why presidential candidates do not let this go too far. ^[5] It divides the country they want to lead.

This is not a question of whether he is racist or not, this is about courage. A president should at least share our most basic morals and the courage to stand up for them. This is what is known as moral courage. Are you really saying racism is part of our basic morality. Then shouldn't a president stand against at least its most overt forms. Otherwise, that's just moral cowardice.

In the End, Just Not a Leader

Now this is just a start. There are more reasons that he is just not qualified to be president, but I'll get into those later. I also want to note, that if this were you or me, any of these would just be human. But, we are talking about the job of president which demands more. Any of us could faint at the sight of blood, but if you do, you cannot be a surgeon.

The common thread is that these are all traits of a leader. Now, I know your going to say, he's a successful business man, he must be a leader. Not true. Business men pay their employees to follow them. He can get anyone to follow him if he pays enough.

Being a leader is a lot more than getting cheers in a rally. You need these traits, and every presidential candidate has shown them to at least some extent, even if they had to fake it.

This should concern you regardless of your party, ideology, and even if you like everything he is saying or promising. Failure in politics does not only prevent you from getting want you want, it discredits that we should even give it to you. Especially, if you elected a failure of a president.

We have to stop treating him as a kid at a recital, where we applaud him because he's cute. We have to judge by the standards of being president and so far he has not met that bar.

Now I know what you're going to say. "I support him because he is a successful business man, and I have confidence in him. A man like him will succeed as president". In other words, Trump is a rich man that sells you confidence. You know that's the definition of con-man, right?

Election 2016 Update, 09-09

State of the Election 2016

Trump in the News

The result of Wednesday forum has pushed the focus on Trump's bromance with Putin, I mentioned yesterday. However, I still stand by my claim that this story does not shift the race. That Pence defending Trump is confirmation. Among Trump voters this has little meaning while anti-Trump voters tend to fixate on it. I'm tempted to psychoanalyze this on both sides, but I won't.

What I did forget to list was Trump's comments on his intelligence briefings. Again this is something anti-Trump voters would care about more than others. I would say the bigger impact is behind the scene. Trump effectively insulted the briefing agent as unprofessional, which by extension, insults all in the intelligence services. But their hands are tied by the same professionalism, so what could they do. I guess they could leak...

Hey did you hear about the leaked NBC story. Apparently, that intelligence briefing included a little drama with Trump's military adviser, General Flynn. Remember how I said only generals in disfavor would work with Trump.

Clinton in the News

Big surprise, we're talking about her emails. At least the right leaning media is. I still contend that would be happening anyway, but there is no way I could prove that.

The more interesting turn is that Clinton held a real press conference. More interesting is that you probably didn't hear about.

What is Aleppo?

This story is probably going to die, but if it doesn't it could change the race. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, showed complete ignorance on Aleppo, a current battleground of the Syrian Civil War. (We're talkin ISIS buddy. A big deal if you want to be president.)

As one who always ask if I don't know something, even if it make me look stupid, I really do respect him for asking. I also respect the way he dealt with it later. He didn't make the same lame excuses like other politicians had in the past.

Though given this is a current news story about the most concerning conflict and likely source of terrorism, my respect is not enough to save him.

If this does kill Gary Johnson's presidential bid, those votes are more likely to go to Clinton. That could mean a 4% shift. Can you say "game change".

But in this year's weirdness, it could go the other way.

We don't like the idea of electing a dishonest president, but we have before and prefer it to electing someone dangerous. That pretty much sums up the race. However, we don't mind electing someone dumb. In fact, we kinda like it, especially, if he is honest and nice. I don't know much about Gary Johnson, but from what I see, he's honest and nice.

I know I'm setting up the plot to a sitcom, but considering how strange this race has gone.....

Election 2016 Update, 09-08

State of the Election 2016

Today I'm going to try something different. Instead, of post semi-weekly deep topics (which so far have been how bad Trump is), I'm going to also post how the election is going, based on my morning update ritual (which I will describe later). Hopefully, I can keep this up every weekday until the election.

Trump in the News?

No surprise, The news is focused on Trump's answers to in last night forum. Trump made three statement that I expected would be the focus. None I believe have a big impact on the race.

Are generals are bad, and he might fire them once President
The reason this is controversial is that in traditional politics, especially Republican, this is heresy. The president should be taking the advice of our generals, not criticizing them. However, given that many are dissatisfied with our policies, this might be the time for heresy.

You might also think this will anger our military service and veterans, But, most suffer the consequence of bad generals, so our troops are not always going to defend them.

What this does change is that every general now knows that Clinton has to be elected for them to keep their jobs. You can expect them to use what influence they can. Though right now, that is not much. From now, on the only generals supporting Trump should be those already in disfavor or willing to "jump ship".

We should have taken Iraq's oil
This was by far the most troubling statement, and if you are not already troubled by him, you should be now. This is crazy stupid. I mean wacko Ben Carson stupid. (Yeah I said it.) First, we can't "take" oil. Oil is under the ground. We would have to capture oil, which means American troops perpetually in Iraq and under constant attack. Not to mention the moral and diplomatic impact it would have.

However, why this is so stupid is not directly obvious. (Though it did just take me a paragraph). If you are already susceptible to jingoistic rhetoric, you won't see the problem.

Putin is not so bad
Trump once again defended his admiration of Putin. This will probably have the least effect and may have already faded away. First, it only reinforces an existing criticism without advancing it. Second, Putin is in some ways an adversary and an ally, so this is not hard to defend. The more troubling aspects is the psychological implications which only appeal to those already against him. I suspect you will only hear about this in left-leaning media.

Clinton in the News

For Clinton, there is not as much noise. Most will be probably focused on her bad answer to the email scandal. But, we would probably talk about that anyway. There was only one answer that stood out.
No ground troops in Syria or Iraq

This could have the most substantive and long lasting impact. Clinton stated unequivocally that she will not put ground troops in Syria or Iraq. Now this statement is going to get parsed by all sides, but I took it to mean "we will not use ground troops to hold territory."

This was not said in a way that could appeal to the Military, but more likely was to ease her more left supporters. I suspect this is also a set up to later drive Trump to say he will put ground troops in Iraq, but more likely the former.

Trump vs Clinton

Both did bad in the forum. They just don't know how to talk to those that serve in our military. What we may have seen is a preview to how they will debate in future, in particular Trump. I still can't cognate what my intuition is telling me on this, so I will have to go at that later.

The polls and projections are predictably moving closer. Before those afraid of a Trump presidency like me, that is in line with political fundamentals. What I am looking to see is if they level off to what I currently guess (please note I said 'guess') to be a +2% Clinton lead in the national polls and 60/40 odds for Clinton vs Trump in the projections. If there is no level off in the next two to three weeks, I would be concerned.

Oh and one more thing. If you have taped the forum and an hour to waste, please watch Trump's section without the sound. I swear I say him in panic answering at least two questions. Look for his eyes widening, slight loss of color in his skin, and speaking faster. And I think I saw a tell. He glances to the left when he feels in trouble.

And Now About Racism....

What You First Must Know About Racism

Now I’m going to talk about racism.[1] This certainly won’t be the only time, but for now, I can start with an important point, what may be the most important point. Ready? Here it is:

If you are vulnerable to racism, you worry less about the racist. You worry about all the others that ignore him.

When you find you have to worry about racism, you soon realize your biggest threat is not the country turning against you. It’s that one racist in the right place that goes unnoticed. That one teacher that gives you a lower grade than you deserve, just enough to change what college you go to. That person in HR that throws away your resume because they don’t like your last name. That landlord that won’t let you move to a better neighborhood. That one person in authority that decides your kind is always guilty of something. The one juror that decides your fate before the trial has begins. The politician that finds he can get a few more votes vilifying you.

In every one of those cases, you know that if that one person was exposed and not tolerated, you would be safe. Unfortunately, you know that more likely, as long as they are careful, no one will stop them. When a racist stands up and confronts you, you can deal with him just like anyone who confronts you. But that rarely happens (at least these days). Instead, he operates under the shadow of rationalizations and innuendos. And because of this, most of the time you find yourself having to prove the “intent” of another person, which is rarely possible.

The only one who can truly stop a racist is those closest to him.

So there it is. You learn that your fate is not in the hands of the racist but everyone that lets him operate unchecked

The important point here is that this is not about hate, decency, or even good and evil. Someone can be the kindest and non-racist person in the world, but if you know they will not stand up to a racist friend, then you are not safe with that person. You may like them. You may respect them, but you cannot trust them.

How could you trust someone knowing that if having to choose between you and the racist that hates you, they would choose the racist?

Now I realize that asking you to stand up to a coworker, friend, relative, or worse yet boss can be a lot to ask. I have not always lived to that standard and would not ask you to, But it does not take much. Just once in a while. If we all did at least that, racism could not grow. It just takes one person to stand up when it matters.

And it’s not too much to ask that you stand against racism when you vote.

We can’t just ask our leaders to not be racist, they have to be ready to take action against it. I know you think racism is wrong, so why would you not ask your candidate to stand up to a racist. That’s just being a leader.

Fortunately, we live in a time where such leaders are not hard to find. Here’s what one looks like.

Here's again what it looks like.

And let us remember the George W. Bush lead us away from bigotry and racism in the midst of 9/11.

Here's what it doesn't look like.

Now I know he later renounced David Duke and made the lame excuse that "he didn't hear the question". But what about this?

And this?

Even as President, his first response it to talk about himself and conflate racism with other issues.

Now, I know many of you will say he has renounced this as well, but President Trump has never renounced racism when he was first asked. He always took at least three times before he would make even the most anodyne statement. Compare this to the force and voice he so willing to show on other issues.

And I'm not even going into President Trump's own racist remarks and the role he has played (yet). A president is supposed to lead us away from racism not towards it. To do, otherwise, is cowardice pure and simple. President Trump is either too much a coward to tell what he really thinks, or he is too much a coward to tell a bigot he is wrong. Either way, he is a coward, and why would we want a coward for a president.

Trump's Utility Function

Determining The Purpose of the Trump Campaign

A utility function is a way to analyze a device or process when you have no direct evidence how it works and seems to have no obvious purpose. In other words, the Trump campaign.^[1]

Here’s how the idea works. Say far in the future an archaeologist finds the remains of a treadmill. There are are no instructions, so instead he examines the device and ask what does it do best. He determines that it is running in place. Now why someone would run in place is a complete mystery to him, so he looks some more. He then puts its in the upright position and hangs clothes on it, which of course is what a treadmill is most often used for.

Now the point is that a utility function does not determine what the intended use is. It determines the most likely use. In other words, treadmills are used more to hang clothes than for exercise.

The Trump campaign is a very cryptic machine. Right now, you would not say its useful for making Trump president, so let see what it’s utility function tells us. Given that most campaign should be good at making their candidate president, our utility function should be based on how the Trump campaign is different. (And it is so different.)

No Previous Political Experience

Trump did not have to run for president. He could have run for Mayor of New York or governor. A candidate needs this, not only for experience in government, but to develop a loyal and competent campaign staff.^[2]

So what would be the utility of Trump running with no experience. It does save time, at least two years^[3], so it lets you be president on the “cheap”. This is also useful, if you believe that after two years, your “moment is lost”.

Late to Using Teleprompter

As much as it maligns them, politicians use teleprompter whenever possible. Yes, that makes them look less authentic and more like a "politician", but they campaign in a world where all stupid statements are used by their enemies and the media. Unless you believe you will never say something stupid (which is overconfident and stupid), you use a teleprompter whenever you can.^[4]

So what would be the utility of Trump not using a teleprompter. Well, for one thing, it does make him look more authentic. Secondly, it's more fun. Third, it is less effort and cheaper. To use a teleprompter you have to write a speech or hire a speech writer.

Late to Fund Raising

We tend to think politicians need money to buy adds, but that's not all of it. Sure, campaign ads need money, but a candidate also needs to hire staff, pay for data mining, build campaigning headquarters in different states, pay legal fees, etc.

Now Trump will tell you he did not want to be beholden to donors, which is consistent with his brand, but not a necessity. Obama and Sanders proved you can raise a lot of money from individual donors, which not only gets you money but gets you votes.

The utility of this is obvious. You save money (since Trump would be expected to donate some of his own)^[5], time, and effort. Plus, fund raising is not fun.

So Where Are We?

Most of the utility points to one conclusion. Trump is having fun. Until now, his campaign has minimized cost and effort, while maximizing fun.

Now events have moved fast with Trump, and he has recently started to “pivot” into a more traditional campaign.^[6] That’s why I keep using the phrase “Late to”. And he is late. Really late. So, late it could do more damage than good. Kind of like showing up at the wedding at the last dance. You still have to bring a gift. All the alcohol is gone. The food is cold, and everyone is still insulted.

One way to resolve this is to suggest he is doing a "faux pivot". In other words, he could be making the outward motions of changing his tone and policy hoping that his original supporters see this as "just what he has to do to be president". Not really an unsound theory, but should become evident soon.

However, there is another way of resolving the contradiction. For the first part of the Trump campaign, the point is to have fun. Then, he decides he wants to be president for many reasons: not wanting to be embarrassed, damage to his business, wants to get Obama back at the next Correspondents Dinner, and so on.

Now, the simplest answer is that he is just overconfident and incompetent. Nor are the reasons mutually exclusive. A utility function can have multiple answers. And none of this contradict Trump latching on to new opportunities, such as starting a TV network.

But the greatest utility of the Trump campaign so far has been to have fun, until he didn't.

If so, then the worst to happen to Trump might be winning the election. Being president is not fun.

Trumpian Laws of Motion

Finally, The Reason We Are Always Talking About Trump

Trump Is Not Hitler, Yet.

Time To Fess Up. Is Trump Hitler Or Not?

Let’s be clear. Trump is not Hitler. Hitler had better hair and larger hands. I also suspect the furor had a better sense of interior deign.

Of course, those small details has not stopped us from making other comparison, and feeling concern about them, including myself. I’ve been laying he groundwork for a while, so let’s finally ask the question: Is the Trump Candidacy dangerous to our democracy? (Well, it took long enough.)

In The Repeal of Godwin's Law I discussed whether we should even asked that question. Part of the problem is that accusing a politician of acting like the H-word has become standard rhetoric. So, while it is appropriate to ask that question (and sometimes desperately necessary), we do need to show why this case is different.

In Call Him Hitler But Let's Be Fair About It, I tried to setup some basic ground rules. If I am successful, we can talk about this without just going into rants or hyperbole. (But I so want to rant) It does matter how we phrase the question, and as I pointed out this is really an examination of his campaign and not him. Hence, I refer to the ‘Trump Candidacy’ instead of ‘Donald J. Trump’.

So, I did my research. Read up on leaders that did become the H-word. (Okay I did some internet searches.) Thought about it. Couldn’t sleep. Drank a lot. And finally came to a conclusion.

Trump Candidacy is NOT a danger to our democracy, YET.

Didn’t see that one coming. Did you?

I bet you’re saying right now, “Wait, you’ve been writing posts about this for almost a month and now you say he’s not Hitler? Why have you been wasting our time with this.”

Hey, I’m as surprised as you. Believe it not, I thought it’d come out differently. I tried, I really tried, but I said I would do this objectively and that’s where it led.

Was I right to be concerned? Darn tootin. Should you have been concerned? Darn rootin tootin. Should we remained concerned? Double Darn rootin tootin.

So, here was my process.

When I started to write this post, I thought I would examine specific traits of the how the Trump Campaign mirrored the infamous figures (Ceasar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Simmon Cowell, that guy who hosts Iron Chef. You know, people like that.). In “The Repeal of Godwin’s Law”, I referenced three.

1. Scapegoating
   
2. Appealing to resentments
   
3. Creating fanatical followers by manipulating group identity
   

I also found this article, Donald Trump wasn’t a textbook demagogue. Until now., which gives four.

1. Posturing as a common man
   
2. Triggering powerful emotions
   
3. Manipulating those powerful emotions for political benefit
   
4. Threatening to break established principles of governance
   

I bet you can find a bunch of others, and what I realized after reading a couple, I’m not that smart. Books have been written on what makes someone an H-word (or demagogue, or autocrat, or dictator, just go on and insert your favorite term). So just go on and read one of those. I’m too lazy to do all that work. (Besides do you really want to read 100 blogs on Trump = Hitler).

So, l took a different tact. As I’ve written before, the problem with these checklists is that a lot of politicians have used these tactics to some extent. Granted that the Trump Candidacy uses them as if Mein Kampf was a campaign textbook. But, comparing the Trump Candidacy to one of these checklist puts us in the position of proving “how much is too much”.

Instead, I assumed that the checklist from other articles and books has been met. (If you don’t like that, well read one and come back to me.) We are assuming that the Trump Candidacy is demagogic, but, what more is needed. I came up three.

1. Could be elected

Now I don’t think he has a good chance to win, about 30% (which tracks well with such projections as FiveThirtyEight)^[1] However, if you went into surgery with on a 70% survival rate, you would be seriously worried the night before. You certainly would not elect to have that surgery unless it was life and death.

2. Accountable to Political Norms

I covered this in That Orange Guy Defies Conventions and pointed out how being a conventional politician acts as a safety measure.

For awhile now, the Republican party has been hoping he will “come around”. In other words, hold himself accountable to political norms. How has that worked out for you Rience? Nor has bad press stopped him. The Trump Candidacy’s latest response has been the Popeye Strategy (I am what I am). So, if you thought he was defying political norms before, than he’s basically promising to continue.^[2]

3. Fanatical Followers

And here is where we fall short.

In the end, it does not depend on Trump. It depends on Trump supporters. A dictator cannot rule alone, and unless he has followers that are willing to go to extreme measures, he’s really just a ranting orange person.

In my last post, Trump’s My Man, I asked if Trump supporters were fanatical. I took a stance and concluded a solid “I don’t know”. (Yeah, I’m a wuss).

Certainly, many aspects of Trump’s support are concerning. The fact that his supporters seemed more motivated by their faith in him, rather than a set of ideas. That they respond to demagogic rhetoric. And so on.

In truth, however, his supporters have behaved well within the bounds of the democratic process. Their arguments my not have the sophistication of a Sunday morning talk show, but that’s the points. A lot of people have been left out in our politics, and maybe some of our overly sophisticated idea are to blame.

So, it’s up to all you Trump supporters^[3] out there, because everyday your leader is pushing closer and closer to the line. One day he’s going to cross it. Maybe he’ll suggest we need a new form of government. He’s already suggesting our election is rigged. Maybe he’ll suggest violence. He’s already come close to that.

The question to you Trump supporters is, when he does, what will you do? Trump is not a danger to our democracy, YET. You Trump supporters are the YET.

As for me, I haven’t bought a ticket to Canada so far, but I am packing a “bug-out bag”.^[4]

Trump's My Man

Is It Fair To Call Trump Supporters Fanatical?

Trump once said, “I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters”.^[1] Now before any Trump supporters get mad at me for calling them fanatical, I didn’t. Your candidate did. Any other candidate would have lost their primary (or at least had to apologize). For Trump, many just laughed.

Now, I realize anyone would object to being painted as fanatical, and we have a lot of people with real frustrations and problems that only the Trump Candidacy seems willing to address. I get it. I really do. In fact, I feel some of it.

Now if you support Trump and have read this far, you are not a fanatic. As it is, also, unfair to me to label any one block of people in such a way. So, let me try to be more thoughtful here.

If you don’t see him as the threat, you can reasonably vote for Trump. Perhaps you just don’t like Hillary. If you are sufficiently concerned about the direction of the country, in particular foreign policy and trade, and you don’t see an issue with his approach to terrorism and immigration, then there is no fanaticism either.

Sure Trump has rallies. Obama had rallies. Sure Trump has supporters that argue past what seem obvious criticism. But, they can easily show this happening with past and current candidates. Again what is different?

Trump supporters have not been violent or even exceptionally vocal. They’ve just had fun at rallies.

Consider that when Goldwater and Perot ran they had a lot of specific. (For Perot, a lot of charts. A whole lot of charts). You could ask someone why they were voting Goldwater or Perot and get specifics. (Often too much specifics). Ted Cruz’s supporters are definitely passionate. But, they follow him because of his proven adherence to Conservative Principles.

So does the Trump Candidacy have supporters that see him as we would any candidate, offering a plan of government, or are they^[2] blindly inspired by him. The numbers matter too, because every candidate has some fanatics in their ranks, just not enough to raise concern.

I’m not sure we can know until after the election. We have to see how support is affected when Trump disappoints (as in changes policies to other than promised or loses the election). Voters will turn away. Fanatics will stay.

However, recently there is a new twist.

When the Trump Candidacy starts saying “if I [Trump] lose, it’s because the election was rigged.”^[3], this attacks the legitimacy of our democracy. In other words, this is the rationale of revolution. Now, me saying that is inflammatory. More likely this is just a way for Trump to preserve his ego and start a television network. But, the legitimacy argument stays out there, and intentionally or not, the movement can grow where they only see Trump (or his successor) as legitimate. Even if this takes a while, remember there is Eric Trump.

If you are a Trump supporter and have gotten this far, let me take the opportunity to make a plea to you. Don’t fall for this.

For the last 16 years (at least) the Republican party has been successful at getting what they want in trade and tax cuts, but have failed in any of the social goals promised. While the Democratic party has made offers to help, they have also largely failed you. I would be angry too. But take a moment and think back. Think back to when you were excited about Bush, Romney or even Obama. Does it feel any different than it does with Trump?

Now he’s suggesting that any loss is not his fault. You know what’s next right? Watch his TV network. Buy his book. Give him money. Give him power. Now what is more likely? A grand conspiracy is afoot by the same institutions you know are incompetent, or that Trump is playing you and covering for his failure?

Only a fanatic would fall for that?

That Orange Guy Defies Convention

Trump's Unconventional Style Means

We Have to Be More Careful

P. J. O’Rourke said it best. “She's [Hillary Clinton] wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."

If you've read The Repeal of Godwin's Law and Call Him Hitler But Let's Be Fair About It, you know that I've been building to see if the Trump Candidacy is a threat to our democracy. His words are easily argued as demagogic (and I certainly will in another post), but reasoning on that line has proved tricky. Other politicians have been demagogic only not with the same intensity. There has to be more than that.

What is it that makes the Trump Candidacy feel so different? And by different I mean scary. Maybe it is what makes him so appealing, his unconventionality.

Trump supporters keep on asking why he has to answer questions like, “Do you disavow the KKK”, “Do you rule out interment camps”, etc. Other candidates don't. Well, he's proposed ideas like “banning Muslims” or blatantly describes a group as “criminals and rapists”, If another candidate did, than yeah. They get asked questions like that.

But perhaps another reason is that before the Trump Candidacy, presidential candidates were more conventional, and that made them accountable.

What many find disturbing (including myself) is that there seems no restraint on  the Trump Candidacy's speech or proposals. If another candidate had said any of the statements in question, their own party would discourage such behavior. And that candidate WOULD LISTEN. He (and she) needed his party. He needed the good will of donors, and he needed the support of activist. Or at least there was a history of services, government or military, where we saw such restraints.

But the Trump Candidacy brags about not being restrained or even willing to self-impose their own. That is part of the campaign rationale. No allegiance to a corrupt party. Not beholden to donors. Not belonging to special interests. And not, being corrupted by years of being a politician.

However, that means if the Trump Candidacy should win, what would stop such behavior in the White House? Yeah, there’s the Congress and the Supreme Court, but do we really want it to go that far. Saying 'We elected a dictator, but that’s OK. We can spend the next four years curbing him.' is not a comfort.

Now, this would be an issue with any outsider candidates. You could ask why there were no concerns about Ross Perot or even Ted Cruz. (Well, we had many concerns about them, but not the racist H-word thing. Well, maybe about Cruz). But these candidates showed restraints in other ways. They were loyal to ideologies and measures of decorum. 

Given that we are a democracy, expecting parties, donors, and activists to restrain a politician is well, undemocratic. The voters should be to who the Trump Candidacy is accountable. And given that the only time his behavior has changed is in response to low poll ratings, that seems his only limit.

But hey, that’s why I’m writing this. I'm talking to you, the voter. The Trump Candidacy is suppose to be earning our vote, and doing so humbly. He should act as if we are the boss, because we are the boss.

Sure a candidate can defy the conventions of his party, his donors, and ideologies. However, he can't defy our conventions. Being unconventional is cool, but that shifts all the responsibility to us. This is the time to be more skeptical and demand more restraint, not settle for less.

The point is that an unconventional and independent candidate is fine, but those conventions and allegiances are safeguards against bad behavior. Without those safeguards, that candidate needs to be examined more closely and held to a higher standard.

Should the press ask him more questions than the other candidate? Yes.
Should we have more specifics on his policy? Yes.
Do we get to criticize him more when he missteps? Yes.

Not only should we do this, we must do this. His unconventionality gives us no other choice.

And if the Trump Candidacy refuses, WE DON'T ELECT HIM. No restraints means no vote. Otherwise, as president, he has no reason to act differently, nor do politicians afterward.

Now it is up to us, because we are all that is left.

Call Him Hitler But Let's Be Fair About It

An Objective Way To Ask If Trump Could Be Hitler

Life often gives us warnings when we are headed on the wrong course. They're subtle. They're quiet. There easy to miss, but when you look back you realize that if you had paid attention to that moment, your life would have not taken that awful turn.

I'm talking about Trump, of course.

Oh come on, you knew I was going there, It's not like I'm the only one. Go search on "Trump Hitler". Even those trying to say he's not Hitler are arguing that he is more like Mussolini or Silvio Berlusconi. (And that's just the Washington Post).

The problem is that if you searched on "Obama Hitler" or "Bush Hitler", you would find a lot of links too. Comparing to Hitler is sooo yesterday.

So how do I talk about him without sounding like a raving, well, blogger?

In my last blog, The Repeal of Godwin's Law, I argued that, while most of the time comparing a politician to Hitler was wrong, there are rare times when the comparison is necessary.

So, given we are at such a time, are we in danger of Trump being the new Hitler? (Yeah, that sounded like a raving blogger).

So, let's do something a little different. Let's have some ground rules.

First of all, 'Trump is Hitler' is incorrect. No one is suggesting that Trump is trying to resurrect the Third Reich. What I really mean is:

Could the Trump Candidacy endanger the US Democracy?

And there's my second ground rule. This is not about Trump. This is about his candidacy. As far as I know Donald J. Trump is a descent and generous man. There is even evidence to this. This is about the way he has chosen to run for the presidency. So, from now, that exactly how I'll refer to it: the Trump Candidacy. (I'm still making jokes about him, however).

And by extension of these two rules, we are not talking about character, temperament, or policy. That's all part of the standard election debates. The question is whether this election is different. (I mean other than it looks like the start of a WWE match).

My third ground rule is that the Trump Candidacy is an indication of the Trump Government. (OK this is more a point, but it is relevant). Yes, the Trump Government could be totally different, but if that's the case, then this is all just one big con job. (Wait a minute!)

OK, my final ground rule. (We'll more of a clarification.) I mean endanger our democracy, not take over. It's enough that a soft coup is tried, whether bloody or not. Even a constitutional crisis, impeachment, or needing to be saved by Jack Bauer is enough reason to raise alarms.

Got all that? Yeah, it was a lot. But we're trying to be fair and thorough here. What do you think this is? Twitter?

But, this did go on a bit, so I'll just have to continue in my next post. There, I'll talk about how the H-word applies (if at all) to the Trump Candidacy.