Delaware Liberal

The December 28, 2016 Thread

Delaware Dem

DR Tucker says no more drama:

Let’s all make a New Year’s Resolution for 2017: no more hand-wringing about why Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Electoral College.

In the days following the dark night of November 8, I have been mystified as to why most Democrats and progressives didn’t come to the obvious conclusion that the Electoral College win of the, shall we say, uncharitable Republican nominee was a fluke, that there was nothing Clinton really could have done to avoid such a fluke, that sometimes stuff happens. Clinton didn’t lose the Electoral College because of identity politics, or because she ran a bad campaign, or because “Make America Great Again” was a more compelling slogan than “Stronger Together.” She lost the Electoral College because Trump got lucky. On any given Election Day, any candidate can beat any other candidate. Democratic self-flagellation is not needed.

Can we also resolve to knock it off with the “Bernie would have beaten Donald” stuff? That’s like arguing that Bill Bradley would have kicked George W. Bush’s rear end in 2000. Sanders supporters are merely speculating when they make this sort of argument; how would Sanders have dealt with the right-wing media infrastructure striking down upon him with great vengeance and furious anger in an general election? Those who insist that Sanders would have stomped on Trump are arguing, in essence, that everyone who voted for Clinton in the Democratic primary made a mistake. Really?

Democrats and progressives should spend their intellectual energy developing strategies to strip the bark off of Donald Trump, not continuing to lament a fluke outcome. If a superior team with a superior coach and a superior quarterback loses the Super Bowl to an inferior team with an inferior coach and an inferior quarterback, and it’s obvious to every spectator watching that the inferior team got lucky, the superior team shouldn’t spend the offseason despondent over the upset loss, but determined to dominate the next season and the playoffs, in order to get another shot at the trophy.

Emphasis mine.

More DR Tucker from the Washington Monthly, this time on what it will be like to hear Donald’s Inaugural:

Democrats and progressives will vomit when they hear the nasty, noxious nonsense that will surely flow like a pipeline from Trump’s mouth: the tax-cut magic, the climate-change denial, the conflation of Islam with ISIS, the call for a new-age nuclear arms race. Trump will have no filter and no censor. It will be the most repulsive inaugural address in United States history. It could also prove to be a galvanizing speech for Trump’s political adversaries: if Trump is explicit about his extremism in a way Reagan and Bush 43 could never be, perhaps it could inspire Democrats and progressives to treat him with the same level of intense scorn Republicans and conservatives treated President Obama–the same level of intense scorn Trump deserves.

The Obamacare repeal and delay plan embraced by Republicans would likely destabilize the state and national insurance exchanges that are a vital part of law, thus causing insurance premiums to skyrocket as a result. Congressional Republicans have a response ready: that the premiums were already spiking because Obamacare is a bad law. S&P says that is incorrect:

We view 2017 as a one-time pricing correction. So although we would expect insurers, on average, to put in another round of premium increases for 2018, the average level of increase requested will be well below the 2017 hike of 25%.

For 2017, we believe the continued pricing correction and network design changes, along with regulatory fine-tuning of ACA rules, will result in closer to break-even results, in aggregate, for the individual market, and more insurers reporting profits in this segment. But most will remain below their target profitability levels (low single-digit margins for the Blues) in 2017. It will take another year or two of continued improvements to get to that target.

Alana Semuels of the Atlantic went to Elkhart, Indiana (Republican territory) to understand why the economic boom they experienced during the Obama years didn’t change their politics.

Elkhart is a case study in how Democrats lost the 2016 elections despite the economic resurgence the country experienced under Obama. It shows how, in an increasingly polarized country, an improving economy is not enough to get Republicans to vote for Democrats, in part because they don’t give Democrats any credit for fixing the economy…

Indeed, as the economy began improving, Elkhart voters grew less likely to support Democratic candidates for president. Obama won 44 percent of the vote in Elkhart County in 2008, 36 percent in 2012, and Clinton received just 31 percent in 2016…

Andi Ermes, 39, offered a number of reasons for disliking Obama. She said Obama didn’t attend the Army-Navy football game, even though other presidents had. Obama has actually attended more Army-Navy games than George H.W. Bush. She said that he had taken too many vacations. He has taken fewer vacation days that George W. Bush. She also said that he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. While it is true that Obama did not wear a flag on his lapel at points during the 2007 campaign, it was back on his suit by 2008. Ermes told me the news sources she consumes most are Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and a local conservative radio show hosted by Casey Hendrickson.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ermes sees the biggest signs for hope in the economy in Carrier deal struck by Donald Trump, which will keep 1,000 jobs in the U.S. “He’s not even president yet and already he’s helping the economy,” she said.

This is a warning sign to those who think winning back racist white working class voters is now the sole mission of all liberals and Democrats. It won’t work.

Click on this and read this whole series of tweets from Anne Theriault.

Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post asks “Trump is being handed a great economy. What happens when it goes south?”

So, what happens when the numbers turn against him? Three consequences seem likely.

One, the administration will start searching for scapegoats other than Trump’s own party and its choices. Immigrants, minorities, Fed officials: Watch out.

Two, assuming Trump will have already signed a major fiscal stimulus package during an expansion, there won’t be much powder left in the keg when Keynesian stimulus is actually needed. That is, fiscal tools available to mitigate the recession will be unusually limited.

And three, the numbers will become suspect once again, and Trump may even try to mess with the official government numbers to suit his narrative. This — and not a recession, blame-gaming or impotent policy response — would cause the most enduring damage to our democracy.

The numbers will go so if he pursues his 10% tariff policy. We’ll be in a recession in 2018. Perfect timing.

The Business Insider reminds us that things you think we know you really don’t:

An examination of the exit polls in three key states that helped swing the election Trump’s way revealed that the economy was by far the most important issue to votes. But those who reported the economy as their top issue — at least in the abstract — believed that Clinton had a stronger message.

In Michigan, 52% of voters said the economy was “most important issue facing the country,” compared to 60% of voters who said the same thing about the economy in 2012. This year, Clinton won by 6 points among people who reported that the economy was the most important issue, while Obama only won on that issue by 3 points.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton won by 4 points among the 56% of voters who reported that the economy was most important issue facing the country. In 2012, Romney won by 5 points among the 61% of voters concerned most about the economy.

The results were even more stark in Wisconsin. While about the same percentage of voters said the economy was the “most important issue facing the country” in 2016 and 2012 — 55% and 56%, respectively — Clinton won those voters by 11 points, while Romney won on the issue by a single point in 2012.

I think the number one danger facing Democrats right now is over interpreting the results. Like DR Tucker stated above, I have come to the conclusion that this election was an aberration. If Biden had been the candidate, he would have won and if Comey didn’t send the letter, Hillary would have won (Bernie is a harder hypothetical to prove because the whole socialism/taxes thing would have hurt him more, and the election would have been fought over much different issues, but I am now thinking even Bernie would have won too).

And yes, I know I am breaking DR Tucker’s rule above in still talking about the election. It is a hard habit to break.

The New York Times: “President-elect Donald J. Trump has packed his cabinet with nominees who dispute the science of global warming. He has signaled he will withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. He has belittled the notion of global warming and attacked policies intended to combat it.”

“But California — a state that has for 50 years been a leader in environmental advocacy — is about to step unto the breach. In a show of defiance, Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, and legislative leaders said they would work directly with other nations and states to defend and strengthen what were already far and away the most aggressive policies to fight climate change in the nation. That includes a legislatively mandated target of reducing carbon emissions in California to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.”

Politico says Trump rewards his donors: “Donors also represent 39 percent of the 119 people Trump reportedly considered for high-level government posts, and 38 percent of those he eventually picked, according to the analysis, which counted candidates named by the transition and in news reports.”

“While campaign donors often are tapped to fill comfy diplomatic posts across the globe, the extent to which donors are stocking Trump’s administration is unparalleled in modern presidential history, due in part to the Supreme Court decisions that loosened restrictions on campaign contributions, according to three longtime campaign experts.”

The New York Times on the delusions of a fat governor from New Jersey: “Once considered the Republican Party’s best hope to win the White House, Mr. Christie has endured months of humiliation after he dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Mr. Trump — who mocked him as they campaigned together for eating too many Oreos, and passed him over as the vice-presidential nominee. Now, Mr. Christie has returned to New Jersey a lame duck in his last year to discover voters angry over his absences and a Legislature suddenly unwilling to go along with his agenda.”

“Mr. Christie still believes he has a political future nationally. He wants to write a book and his friends have been telling people in New Jersey that the governor expects Mr. Trump to eventually come around to him. According to their scenario, the White House management team of Jared Kushner, Stephen K. Bannon and Reince Priebus will be a disaster and Mr. Christie will be tapped as the skilled manager, like David Gergen, the former aide to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan who swooped in to steady Bill Clinton’s administration after a raucous first year.”

In a year’s time, Christie will be both out of office and indicted.

Exit mobile version