The polls have tightened! Maybe you've heard, people are making kind of a big deal about it. In fact they're probably overstating the extent of the tightening, but it's pretty undeniable that some tightening has occurred. And one interesting thing about it is that it's almost entirely Trump gaining ground, rather than Clinton losing ground. On October 19th, the 538 national polling average stood at Clinton 45.4%, Trump 38.8%, a lead of 6.6% for Hillary. Today Trump's all the way up to 41.0%, a gain of 2.2%! And Clinton has fallen all the way to... 45.4%. A.k.a. the exact same place. Admittedly in the interim she went up to 46.0% and came back down again, but even since Hillary's number peaked on October 26th she's only down 0.6%, while Trump is up 1.4%. The share of voters remaining undecided or going for one of the third-party options has been falling for a while now. So let's think a bit about what this means, that Trump is gaining ground while Hillary is holding her ground.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, October 31, 2016
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Concerning those Polls
So, um. There's no real way to sugarcoat it: the polls right now look bad. We're mostly into the general election now; Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton is the basically-also-presumptive Democratic nominee. This match-up has been polled extensively since last summer, when it (to be more precise, the Trump side of it) first became plausible. And Clinton has led in the polls, constantly. At the worst of her email scandal last August, this got down to maybe a 1-point lead, but then it got bigger and for most of 2016 it's been pretty substantial. In late March Hillary was up by more than 10 point, on average. As recently as mid-April it was still around 9%.
Now it's 2%. This is, um, scary. The only thing that's made Trump's victory in the Republican primary anything other than utterly terrifying has been the thought that, of course, he's not going to win. Right now, if you look at the polls... yikes. It doesn't look especially slam-dunk that he's not going to win. And the question is what to make of this.
Obviously, given my nature, I'm going to say that we shouldn't worry too much, not commensurate with how bad it would be if we were entering this election with only a +2% advantage anyway. And I do think that's right. Equally obvious, though, is the fact that we should be somewhat worried, and that something about this current wave of bad polls is telling us that there is maybe more of a chance that things go the wrong way than we thought.
But the key to understanding what the polls are saying right now, I think, is that they're saying a different thing from a month ago. And from two months ago, and three, and four. That means we need to ask, what's changed? And there's a clear answer: Trump has wrapped up his nomination fight, while Clinton hasn't. And the Democratic side is getting nasty. We can see this in the polls, too. Bernie's hypothetical lead over Trump grew wider at about the same time Hillary's did, earlier in 2016, suggesting that that shift was caused by something about Trump (i.e., he got less popular). But right now, Bernie's lead hasn't budged. That tells me that the current shift is nothing to do with Trump, it's to do with Hillary. Note also that since mid-April, when it was Clinton 49%, Trump 40%, Trump's gone up just over 1%, while Clinton has dropped by nearly 6%. Again, this looks like a Clinton phenomenon, not a Trump phenomenon.
But I don't recall the last month as being a particularly bad one for Clinton. No new scandals, no major missteps. The latest rumor about the email thing is that she's been fully vindicated, though a formal announcement has yet to be made. Nothing's really been going on that would suggest Hillary's become that much more toxic a candidate... in the eyes of a disinterested observer, maybe. Not in the eyes of a Bernie supporter. And there's the rub: it seems basically certain that what's going on right now is that an awful lot of Bernie supporters aren't saying they'll vote for Hillary in the general election. (Nate Silver makes the same point in a series of tweets.)
So we basically know why the polls look like they do. The thing Hillary's people keep saying about how she's fighting two campaigns right now is correct. Trump has wrapped up the Republican side, and has gotten a bit of a boost from consolidating his party. More importantly, Hillary hasn't wrapped up her side yet, and the Democrats are if anything splintering a bit as our race draws to a close. So that's the big question of the election right now: once Hillary actually wins, and Bernie drops out, do his supporters go back to saying they'll all vote for her? Can he get them to do that? If so, then we're back to a baseline of Clinton +6% or +8% or maybe even +10%, and the election looks fairly comfortable, especially since I expect the campaign to wear well for her and ill for Trump. If not, then there's potentially a lot more danger.
I would really like to think that this is just a temporary phenomenon. Something similar happened to Obama back in 2008, when McCain had wrapped up the nomination but Hillary was still hanging on, and that too passed. And, hey--Trump got a boost when he wrapped up his nomination! And Republicans have way more reason to not support him than Democrats do to not support Hillary. Waaaaay more. You see prominent conservative pundits talking about how bad Trump is and thinking of running a third-party candidate or whatever. Bernie Sanders keeps repeating how much better than the Republicans Hillary is. It would just be bizarre if this election ends up with a Republican Party unified around Trump but a Democratic Party that can't unify around Hillary Clinton, one of its leading figures for damn near three decades now. So I remain skeptical that that's what's going to happen. Probably another month from now, the polls will start looking more like they should, and the best course of action until then is not to panic.
But I can't deny that the way the whole Sanders campaign is going right now has me pretty legitimately worried. I think he's done some real damage, and I think he's going to need to work real hard to repair it when the time comes. He'd bloody well better.
Now it's 2%. This is, um, scary. The only thing that's made Trump's victory in the Republican primary anything other than utterly terrifying has been the thought that, of course, he's not going to win. Right now, if you look at the polls... yikes. It doesn't look especially slam-dunk that he's not going to win. And the question is what to make of this.
Obviously, given my nature, I'm going to say that we shouldn't worry too much, not commensurate with how bad it would be if we were entering this election with only a +2% advantage anyway. And I do think that's right. Equally obvious, though, is the fact that we should be somewhat worried, and that something about this current wave of bad polls is telling us that there is maybe more of a chance that things go the wrong way than we thought.
But the key to understanding what the polls are saying right now, I think, is that they're saying a different thing from a month ago. And from two months ago, and three, and four. That means we need to ask, what's changed? And there's a clear answer: Trump has wrapped up his nomination fight, while Clinton hasn't. And the Democratic side is getting nasty. We can see this in the polls, too. Bernie's hypothetical lead over Trump grew wider at about the same time Hillary's did, earlier in 2016, suggesting that that shift was caused by something about Trump (i.e., he got less popular). But right now, Bernie's lead hasn't budged. That tells me that the current shift is nothing to do with Trump, it's to do with Hillary. Note also that since mid-April, when it was Clinton 49%, Trump 40%, Trump's gone up just over 1%, while Clinton has dropped by nearly 6%. Again, this looks like a Clinton phenomenon, not a Trump phenomenon.
But I don't recall the last month as being a particularly bad one for Clinton. No new scandals, no major missteps. The latest rumor about the email thing is that she's been fully vindicated, though a formal announcement has yet to be made. Nothing's really been going on that would suggest Hillary's become that much more toxic a candidate... in the eyes of a disinterested observer, maybe. Not in the eyes of a Bernie supporter. And there's the rub: it seems basically certain that what's going on right now is that an awful lot of Bernie supporters aren't saying they'll vote for Hillary in the general election. (Nate Silver makes the same point in a series of tweets.)
So we basically know why the polls look like they do. The thing Hillary's people keep saying about how she's fighting two campaigns right now is correct. Trump has wrapped up the Republican side, and has gotten a bit of a boost from consolidating his party. More importantly, Hillary hasn't wrapped up her side yet, and the Democrats are if anything splintering a bit as our race draws to a close. So that's the big question of the election right now: once Hillary actually wins, and Bernie drops out, do his supporters go back to saying they'll all vote for her? Can he get them to do that? If so, then we're back to a baseline of Clinton +6% or +8% or maybe even +10%, and the election looks fairly comfortable, especially since I expect the campaign to wear well for her and ill for Trump. If not, then there's potentially a lot more danger.
I would really like to think that this is just a temporary phenomenon. Something similar happened to Obama back in 2008, when McCain had wrapped up the nomination but Hillary was still hanging on, and that too passed. And, hey--Trump got a boost when he wrapped up his nomination! And Republicans have way more reason to not support him than Democrats do to not support Hillary. Waaaaay more. You see prominent conservative pundits talking about how bad Trump is and thinking of running a third-party candidate or whatever. Bernie Sanders keeps repeating how much better than the Republicans Hillary is. It would just be bizarre if this election ends up with a Republican Party unified around Trump but a Democratic Party that can't unify around Hillary Clinton, one of its leading figures for damn near three decades now. So I remain skeptical that that's what's going to happen. Probably another month from now, the polls will start looking more like they should, and the best course of action until then is not to panic.
But I can't deny that the way the whole Sanders campaign is going right now has me pretty legitimately worried. I think he's done some real damage, and I think he's going to need to work real hard to repair it when the time comes. He'd bloody well better.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Hillary Clinton and the Foreign Policy Triangle
There's an interesting piece on Vox today trying to reconcile several different views of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton (I can say that now, after her wins in New York and most of the other northeastern states that voted last night) in terms of her foreign policy attitudes. One view comes from a profile by Mark Landler in the New York Times Magazine titled, "How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk," whose thesis (which, as the Vox article notes, embodies the conventional wisdom) is that Hillary is a "super-hawk," "the last true hawk left in the race," with far more "appetite for military engagement abroad" than even any of the Republicans. Than even Ted "Let's See if Sand Can Glow in the Dark" Cruz. Yikes! The other view comes from the nuclear nonproliferation group Global Zero, on whose scorecard Clinton ranks far more dovish across the board than the Republicans, and is not so different from Bernie Sanders. This is a question of some considerable importance, and one that received perhaps less attention during the Democratic primary than it deserved, because if Hillary is, indeed, a super-hawk, that would be by far her greatest potential weakness with the Democratic electorate. (Bernie failed to make much hay with this, because he seemed remarkably out of his depth in foreign policy arguments, but it's still worth thinking about.)
The Vox piece ends up concluding that things are considerably more complicated than perhaps either of the opposing views would suggest:
And it really is a three-way system. You can't construct any one of these worldviews out of some mixture of the other two; they're qualitatively different orientations toward the world. And they map onto the ordinary political spectrum in some interesting ways. Internationalism is a distinctively liberal attitude, and imperialism a conservative one, but while you can have isolationism of either a liberal or a conservative stripe, it's not especially a "centrist" approach. Indeed, during much of the 20th century it was the very most conservative Republicans who were isolationists. Broadly speaking I think that conservative foreign policy thought runs along the edge of the triangle from imperialism to isolationism (see this excellent Jonathan Chait piece identifying Ted Cruz with the modern isolationists, who see air power as a way to dominate the world without engaging in it, and Marco Rubio with the neo-imperialist neocons)*, while liberal foreign policy runs along the edge from internationalism to isolationism. Bernie Sanders, for example, is somewhere in the middle of that line: he's emphatically not an imperialist, and is in conventional terms incredibly "dovish," but is somewhat skeptical about American involvement abroad, whether diplomatic or militaristic.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is I think on that other edge, the line running from imperialism to internationalism. And I think she's pretty clearly most of the way toward internationalism, maybe almost all the way there. But she's definitely not an isolationist. She sees America as having tremendous capacity to do good in the world, by various means, and as President she will doubtless try to do a lot of good in the world using those various means. Maybe that will get her into trouble sometimes; I certainly think that Obama's skepticism of America's ability to change things for the better has been a healthy one. But it's a fundamentally different impulse from the truly "hawkish" ones of the imperialists. She is interested in using military power, but not for conquest. Maybe from a left-isolationist standpoint that doesn't matter. Maybe for an internationalist skeptical about American power, in more of the Obama tradition, it's a well-meaning but ultimately mistaken and potentially even disastrous approach. This piece isn't entirely a defense of Hillary Clinton.
Rather, it is simply an argument that you cannot understand Hillary Clinton if you try to see foreign policy through a one-dimensional, bipolar lens, with "hawks" on one side and "doves" on the other. There are three different foreign policy camps, and unless you understand that, you can't understand how the different candidates relate to one another.
*And what, you may ask, about Donald Trump? I... don't know, exactly. I think he's a sort of imperialist? But a very different one than the neocons. Basically, as many people have noted, it seems like his "ambition is to sit at the head of a vast American tribute empire," not surprising, perhaps, given that his own business is basically a tribute empire built around the name Trump. I guess that's imperialist? Or some sort of weirdo hybrid between imperialism and isolationism? Maybe it's more isolationist? We shouldn't get involved unless they pay us? Transactional isolationism? I don't know. Certainly it's not within the four corners of any standard-issue map of foreign policy approaches.
The Vox piece ends up concluding that things are considerably more complicated than perhaps either of the opposing views would suggest:
[H]er past record, current policies, and ... larger worldview . . . reveal Clinton as someone who is exceptionally enthusiastic about the merits and potential of American engagement in the world. She is indeed, more than any other candidate in the race, a true believer in American power.This is an area where, I think, viewing foreign policy through a simple one-dimensional spectrum is a real mistake. American attitudes toward foreign policy are best thought of as a triangle, with three distinct poles: isolationism, imperialism, and internationalism. Isolationism is simple: it's the view that we shouldn't really be involved in foreign affairs at all. This was the prevailing attitude in, say, the 1920s, and into much of the 1930s. Imperialism is the view that we should aggressively use our national might, and especially our military power, to advance our own interests across the globe. Our literal imperialism around the turn of the 20th century was the clearest embodiment of this view, and I therefore use the word "imperialism" as a neat shorthand, but in our own era I think the neoconservatives exemplify this overall attitude. Finally, internationalism is the view that we should take an active, perhaps even a leading, role in foreign affairs, but that we should do so in cooperation with other countries where possible, should emphasize diplomacy, and should in general act for the general good of the world rather than for selfishly pro-American reasons. Woodrow Wilson (and his League of Nations) and Harry Truman (who brought America into the U.N.) are exemplars of internationalism.
But Clinton's policies and past record suggest that her vision of power includes military force as well as diplomacy, so that while she is more likely to act in foreign affairs, she is also more likely to do so peacefully.
And it really is a three-way system. You can't construct any one of these worldviews out of some mixture of the other two; they're qualitatively different orientations toward the world. And they map onto the ordinary political spectrum in some interesting ways. Internationalism is a distinctively liberal attitude, and imperialism a conservative one, but while you can have isolationism of either a liberal or a conservative stripe, it's not especially a "centrist" approach. Indeed, during much of the 20th century it was the very most conservative Republicans who were isolationists. Broadly speaking I think that conservative foreign policy thought runs along the edge of the triangle from imperialism to isolationism (see this excellent Jonathan Chait piece identifying Ted Cruz with the modern isolationists, who see air power as a way to dominate the world without engaging in it, and Marco Rubio with the neo-imperialist neocons)*, while liberal foreign policy runs along the edge from internationalism to isolationism. Bernie Sanders, for example, is somewhere in the middle of that line: he's emphatically not an imperialist, and is in conventional terms incredibly "dovish," but is somewhat skeptical about American involvement abroad, whether diplomatic or militaristic.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is I think on that other edge, the line running from imperialism to internationalism. And I think she's pretty clearly most of the way toward internationalism, maybe almost all the way there. But she's definitely not an isolationist. She sees America as having tremendous capacity to do good in the world, by various means, and as President she will doubtless try to do a lot of good in the world using those various means. Maybe that will get her into trouble sometimes; I certainly think that Obama's skepticism of America's ability to change things for the better has been a healthy one. But it's a fundamentally different impulse from the truly "hawkish" ones of the imperialists. She is interested in using military power, but not for conquest. Maybe from a left-isolationist standpoint that doesn't matter. Maybe for an internationalist skeptical about American power, in more of the Obama tradition, it's a well-meaning but ultimately mistaken and potentially even disastrous approach. This piece isn't entirely a defense of Hillary Clinton.
Rather, it is simply an argument that you cannot understand Hillary Clinton if you try to see foreign policy through a one-dimensional, bipolar lens, with "hawks" on one side and "doves" on the other. There are three different foreign policy camps, and unless you understand that, you can't understand how the different candidates relate to one another.
*And what, you may ask, about Donald Trump? I... don't know, exactly. I think he's a sort of imperialist? But a very different one than the neocons. Basically, as many people have noted, it seems like his "ambition is to sit at the head of a vast American tribute empire," not surprising, perhaps, given that his own business is basically a tribute empire built around the name Trump. I guess that's imperialist? Or some sort of weirdo hybrid between imperialism and isolationism? Maybe it's more isolationist? We shouldn't get involved unless they pay us? Transactional isolationism? I don't know. Certainly it's not within the four corners of any standard-issue map of foreign policy approaches.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Shut Up, Bernie
So, last week Bernie Sanders said some things. Things like this:
But the bottom line is that when only half of the American people have participated in the political process, when some of the larger states in this country, people in those states have not yet been able to voice their opinion on who should be the Democratic nominee, I think it's absurd for anybody to suggest that those people not have a right to cast a vote.And like this:
We think if we come into the convention in July in Philadelphia, having won a whole lot of delegates, having a whole lot of momentum behind us, and most importantly perhaps being the candidate who is most likely to defeat Donald Trump, we think that some of these super delegates who have now supported Hillary Clinton can come over to us. Rachel, in almost every poll, not every poll, but almost every national matchup poll between Sanders and Trump, Clinton and Trump, we do better than Hillary Clinton and sometimes by large numbers. We get a lot more of the independent vote than she gets. And, frankly and very honestly, I think I am a stronger candidate to defeat Trump than Secretary Clinton is and I think many secretary -- many of the super delegates understand that.Okay, so, a few thoughts.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
A Reality Check on the Democratic Primary
It's Tuesday. Specifically, it's Tuesday, March 15th, the Ides of March, and a key turning point in both presidential primaries. But who cares about the Republicans; this post is about the Democrats. One week ago, on Tuesday, March 8th (a.k.a. International Women's Day), the soon-to-be first female President suffered a really shocking defeat in Michigan, where polls had her up by over 20 points. Bernie ended up winning, just barely, by about 1.5%. It was shocking, and made us reconsider everything we thought we knew about how the race is going. Today (well, tomorrow, really, since it's only just barely Tuesday as I'm writing this), five big states will vote, the first and last time that will happen. It's Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Illinois, and Florida. And we'll see whether Michigan was a harbinger of things to come, in terms of polling error, or whether things will be basically back to normal. If the latter, we're looking at big Clinton wins in Florida and North Carolina, the last Southern states to vote, a more modest Clinton win in Ohio, a close race in Missouri, and... god knows what's going on in Illinois.
But it's worth taking stock of how things are going, because... they're going really well for Hillary. You can see how well using the FiveThirtyEight delegate targets. In almost every state, Hillary's meeting or beating her targets. And while Bernie does have a few states where he's beat his targets, they're tiny little victories. He netted one delegate versus his target in Oklahoma and Maine, two apiece in Vermont (by shutting Hillary out) and Colorado, and by five in Kansas. That's his biggest win. In Michigan, his great victory only amounted to holding Hillary to her targets. Meanwhile, Hillary has seven wins bigger than Bernie's biggest, in South Carolina (+7), Georgia (+9), Alabama (+9), Mississippi (+9), Virginia (+10), Tennessee (+11), and Texas (+22). Indeed, Tennessee all by itself is enough to cancel out all five of Bernie's wins. Put it all together and she's 88 delegates ahead of her targets, which means he's 88 delegates behind his targets. He doesn't just need to win going forward. He needs to win big. He needs to win big states by big margins. He needs to beat his targets by big margins in big states. And those targets include winning New York. Hillary's from New York.
And all this, having not delivered a single win of the sort he needs.
Here's another fact about tomorrow: it marks the half-way point of the campaign. 2006 delegates will have been awarded after tomorrow, with only 1946 to come (plus a handful here or there from non-state primaries). So after tomorrow, Bernie will need to win by the same margin he's lost by to date. Let's assume he manages to hold Hillary even in delegates. And let's also say he manages to hold her even in delegates between California and New York. All of that is generous to Bernie, I think. The 538 targets would have Hillary winning 723 of the 1413 delegates at stake in those seven states, and that has Bernie narrowly winning New York. So that would leave Bernie 223 delegates behind (as he is right now), with 1224 delegates left to be awarded. He'd need to win 724 of those delegates, or nearly 60%. Take Pennsylvania and New Jersey out of the mix, the two biggest states, where a combined delegate split also looks pretty generous for Bernie, and you're talking about only 909 delegates left. He'd need to win 557 of those. Here are the states where Bernie's won more than 60% of the delegates: Kansas and Vermont. That's his home state, and one other state. (EDIT: whoops, I forgot Maine. There's also Maine.)
If he can't win big tomorrow, bigger than it looks like he should, and if he can't win big in the four biggest states that will remain after tomorrow, his task is to win everywhere else as thoroughly as he won Kansas. (And Maine!)
That really doesn't seem very plausible. And that means that, 24 hours from now, it might start looking pretty much impossible for him to win. Unless we get another Michigan.
But it's worth taking stock of how things are going, because... they're going really well for Hillary. You can see how well using the FiveThirtyEight delegate targets. In almost every state, Hillary's meeting or beating her targets. And while Bernie does have a few states where he's beat his targets, they're tiny little victories. He netted one delegate versus his target in Oklahoma and Maine, two apiece in Vermont (by shutting Hillary out) and Colorado, and by five in Kansas. That's his biggest win. In Michigan, his great victory only amounted to holding Hillary to her targets. Meanwhile, Hillary has seven wins bigger than Bernie's biggest, in South Carolina (+7), Georgia (+9), Alabama (+9), Mississippi (+9), Virginia (+10), Tennessee (+11), and Texas (+22). Indeed, Tennessee all by itself is enough to cancel out all five of Bernie's wins. Put it all together and she's 88 delegates ahead of her targets, which means he's 88 delegates behind his targets. He doesn't just need to win going forward. He needs to win big. He needs to win big states by big margins. He needs to beat his targets by big margins in big states. And those targets include winning New York. Hillary's from New York.
And all this, having not delivered a single win of the sort he needs.
Here's another fact about tomorrow: it marks the half-way point of the campaign. 2006 delegates will have been awarded after tomorrow, with only 1946 to come (plus a handful here or there from non-state primaries). So after tomorrow, Bernie will need to win by the same margin he's lost by to date. Let's assume he manages to hold Hillary even in delegates. And let's also say he manages to hold her even in delegates between California and New York. All of that is generous to Bernie, I think. The 538 targets would have Hillary winning 723 of the 1413 delegates at stake in those seven states, and that has Bernie narrowly winning New York. So that would leave Bernie 223 delegates behind (as he is right now), with 1224 delegates left to be awarded. He'd need to win 724 of those delegates, or nearly 60%. Take Pennsylvania and New Jersey out of the mix, the two biggest states, where a combined delegate split also looks pretty generous for Bernie, and you're talking about only 909 delegates left. He'd need to win 557 of those. Here are the states where Bernie's won more than 60% of the delegates: Kansas and Vermont. That's his home state, and one other state. (EDIT: whoops, I forgot Maine. There's also Maine.)
If he can't win big tomorrow, bigger than it looks like he should, and if he can't win big in the four biggest states that will remain after tomorrow, his task is to win everywhere else as thoroughly as he won Kansas. (And Maine!)
That really doesn't seem very plausible. And that means that, 24 hours from now, it might start looking pretty much impossible for him to win. Unless we get another Michigan.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Congratulations to Bernie Sanders on his First Good State Result!
Woohoo! He finally beat the 538 benchmarks in a state! And it'll almost certainly be two of them by night's end. His shocking 10-point victory in Oklahoma was six points ahead of his +4% benchmark, and he looks on pace to win Colorado by about six surplus points as well, with a 17-point win.
That is officially the end of the good news for Bernie Sanders tonight. Well, okay, a 73-point win in Vermont ain't bad, even if it falls short of the +83% benchmark. But his ~15-point win in Minnesota will fall short of a +21% benchmark. Meanwhile he's failing to win two states he should've won: Massachusetts, which he should've won by about 11% and will instead lose by 2% (which I think is brutal for his campaign), and Tennessee. Oh, Tennessee. 538 thinks it should've been a very competitive state. It had other ideas, joining its Southern neighbors in giving Hillary a landslide win at +37%. Taken all by itself that would imply a 39-point national lead for Hillary. Obviously that's ridiculous, but these benchmarks are just approximations and the real results would vary a little. Which is to say, the massive surplus in Tennessee for Clinton makes up for Bernie's good results in Colorado and Oklahoma.
And then we get to the rest of the South, where he was projected to lose big but actually lost bigger. In the current approximations of the final results, he's 16 points behind his benchmark in Georgia, 20 points behind in Texas, 24 points behind in Arkansas, and 28 points behind in Alabama.
Add it all together and Hillary's running about 15 points ahead of the benchmarks in the states that voted tonight. Add in the four early states and it's... still 15%. We're getting a fairly consistent view of the race, not so much state to state but when you add it all up. Sanders has run a great campaign, and his five state wins so far really are amazing given where he came from. But he's not there yet, and at this point, with the battle-lines hardening ever more, it really doesn't look like he can get there.
And even if he does, he'll need to make up for the big wins Hillary's already banked. Which looks basically impossible given the proportional delegate allocation.
Within a few weeks it's gonna start looking like Bernie shouldn't really be in the race anymore.
That is officially the end of the good news for Bernie Sanders tonight. Well, okay, a 73-point win in Vermont ain't bad, even if it falls short of the +83% benchmark. But his ~15-point win in Minnesota will fall short of a +21% benchmark. Meanwhile he's failing to win two states he should've won: Massachusetts, which he should've won by about 11% and will instead lose by 2% (which I think is brutal for his campaign), and Tennessee. Oh, Tennessee. 538 thinks it should've been a very competitive state. It had other ideas, joining its Southern neighbors in giving Hillary a landslide win at +37%. Taken all by itself that would imply a 39-point national lead for Hillary. Obviously that's ridiculous, but these benchmarks are just approximations and the real results would vary a little. Which is to say, the massive surplus in Tennessee for Clinton makes up for Bernie's good results in Colorado and Oklahoma.
And then we get to the rest of the South, where he was projected to lose big but actually lost bigger. In the current approximations of the final results, he's 16 points behind his benchmark in Georgia, 20 points behind in Texas, 24 points behind in Arkansas, and 28 points behind in Alabama.
Add it all together and Hillary's running about 15 points ahead of the benchmarks in the states that voted tonight. Add in the four early states and it's... still 15%. We're getting a fairly consistent view of the race, not so much state to state but when you add it all up. Sanders has run a great campaign, and his five state wins so far really are amazing given where he came from. But he's not there yet, and at this point, with the battle-lines hardening ever more, it really doesn't look like he can get there.
And even if he does, he'll need to make up for the big wins Hillary's already banked. Which looks basically impossible given the proportional delegate allocation.
Within a few weeks it's gonna start looking like Bernie shouldn't really be in the race anymore.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
There's Not a Single State Where Polling (or Voting) Suggests Sanders is Leading
FiveThirtyEight just rolled out a new version of the projections I discussed in this piece. It incorporates several new demographic factors, including an urban/rural split. One interesting thing about it is that, if the race is tied, Hillary will be winning about fifteen states, out of fifty: this implies that her support is more strongly concentrated into a few big states where she has major advantages, where Sanders has more modest advantages across a larger number of smaller states. Or to put it another way, in order to win, Sanders really needs to feel like he's winning.
And... boy does this ever not look like a race where Sanders is winning. The first three states now look way better for Hillary: instead of implying national leads of 6, 7, and 2 points respectively, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada now imply leads of 19, 10, and 5. Meanwhile, they also put the current 538 polling averages into their latest chart, and... whaddaya know, Sanders is currently beating his benchmarks in a whopping zero states. You've got some states, like South Carolina, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Texas, and North Carolina, that don't look all that different from a tied race; Hillary's beating those benchmarks by single digits. But then you've got, jeez. Sanders ought to be winning Tennessee, narrowly; he's losing it by 25 points. Similarly in Michigan, where he's 20 points behind his benchmark. And then looking a little further down the calendar, you've got more states Sanders ought to be winning, or maybe even winning big, like Utah and Wisconsin. You've got big states he's got to win, like Pennsylvania and California. Hillary's leading them all: by eight, two, twenty-two, and thirteen, respectively. There just isn't a single real bright spot for Sanders in the state polling we have right now. Overall, taking a rough average of all these future states, it looks like a Clinton +13 race right now. That's very similar to the numbers implied by the first three states that have voted, which were maybe consistent with a +11 race overall.
And this, by the way, makes me skeptical of the polls we're seeing showing more like a +5 Clinton race nationally, or the one that had Sanders leading for what is I believe the first time ever. If that's so, there has to be somewhere in this nation where he's doing better than you might expect given a tied race. But those national polls that are more optimistic for Sanders, that's basically where the single most optimistic individual state data-points for him are at. And that makes it tough to view them as anything other than outliers, or perhaps pollsters whose weighting algorithms are off.
But, we shall see.
And... boy does this ever not look like a race where Sanders is winning. The first three states now look way better for Hillary: instead of implying national leads of 6, 7, and 2 points respectively, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada now imply leads of 19, 10, and 5. Meanwhile, they also put the current 538 polling averages into their latest chart, and... whaddaya know, Sanders is currently beating his benchmarks in a whopping zero states. You've got some states, like South Carolina, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Texas, and North Carolina, that don't look all that different from a tied race; Hillary's beating those benchmarks by single digits. But then you've got, jeez. Sanders ought to be winning Tennessee, narrowly; he's losing it by 25 points. Similarly in Michigan, where he's 20 points behind his benchmark. And then looking a little further down the calendar, you've got more states Sanders ought to be winning, or maybe even winning big, like Utah and Wisconsin. You've got big states he's got to win, like Pennsylvania and California. Hillary's leading them all: by eight, two, twenty-two, and thirteen, respectively. There just isn't a single real bright spot for Sanders in the state polling we have right now. Overall, taking a rough average of all these future states, it looks like a Clinton +13 race right now. That's very similar to the numbers implied by the first three states that have voted, which were maybe consistent with a +11 race overall.
And this, by the way, makes me skeptical of the polls we're seeing showing more like a +5 Clinton race nationally, or the one that had Sanders leading for what is I believe the first time ever. If that's so, there has to be somewhere in this nation where he's doing better than you might expect given a tied race. But those national polls that are more optimistic for Sanders, that's basically where the single most optimistic individual state data-points for him are at. And that makes it tough to view them as anything other than outliers, or perhaps pollsters whose weighting algorithms are off.
But, we shall see.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Where We're At in the Democratic Primary
A few days ago, FiveThirtyEight published a very useful piece that essentially laid out the landscape for the 2016 Democratic primary. They used some polling data, fundraising, demographics, and Facebook popularity to figure out how we can expect each state to vote if Hillary is leading by twelve points, and alternately how we would expect them to vote if she's fallen into a tie with Bernie--i.e., the first projection shifted over by twelve points, plus or minus rounding errors. And what this lets us do is convert individual state results into an estimate of how the race stands nationally, both with actual results and with polls.
So, for example, they show Nevada as a pro-Hillary state, one that should go to her by about 3 points even if the race is tied. If in fact Nevada ends up as basically a tie tomorrow (and we have very little idea what will happen there; there have only been three polls, all low-quality ones, in recent weeks), that's a fantastic result for Bernie. Even if it comes out as Hillary +6%, the most pro-Hillary of the three recent polls, that's a very good result for him. Conversely, Hillary's got something like a 25-point lead in the South Carolina polling average, which would be even better than the +23% win they project for her with a national 12-point lead. It's to be expected that different states will give different signals, because these projections are by no means perfect. (It's like extrapolating election night results on the assumption of uniform swing: it's a good approximation but never quite holds.) Indeed it kind of looks like a decent guess for Nevada is the national-tie scenario, while a decent guess for South Carolina is the Clinton lead scenario.
One interesting thing, though, is that the two states that have voted so far both say the same thing about the race. Iowa was a tie, falling almost precisely between the two projections (+7% for Hillary if she's up big, +6% for Bernie if it's a tie). Meanwhile, though Sanders won big in New Hampshire, by 22%, he didn't win as big as he should have if the race is a tie, which would've been 29%. Both states, therefore, imply a Clinton lead of roughly 6 or 7 points nationwide. Which confirms my feeling that those results were decent for Clinton, even though they looked pretty lousy. To be sure it's remarkably that Sanders is within 6 or 7 points nationally, but that's still a pace that has Hillary winning. If that pace holds, we should see Hillary winning by nearly 10 points in Nevada and by 16 or 17 in South Carolina; more likely we'll see a similar average result between those two states but highly disparate individual signals.
In any case, it's just something to keep an eye on, as a guide to interpreting each state's results.
So, for example, they show Nevada as a pro-Hillary state, one that should go to her by about 3 points even if the race is tied. If in fact Nevada ends up as basically a tie tomorrow (and we have very little idea what will happen there; there have only been three polls, all low-quality ones, in recent weeks), that's a fantastic result for Bernie. Even if it comes out as Hillary +6%, the most pro-Hillary of the three recent polls, that's a very good result for him. Conversely, Hillary's got something like a 25-point lead in the South Carolina polling average, which would be even better than the +23% win they project for her with a national 12-point lead. It's to be expected that different states will give different signals, because these projections are by no means perfect. (It's like extrapolating election night results on the assumption of uniform swing: it's a good approximation but never quite holds.) Indeed it kind of looks like a decent guess for Nevada is the national-tie scenario, while a decent guess for South Carolina is the Clinton lead scenario.
One interesting thing, though, is that the two states that have voted so far both say the same thing about the race. Iowa was a tie, falling almost precisely between the two projections (+7% for Hillary if she's up big, +6% for Bernie if it's a tie). Meanwhile, though Sanders won big in New Hampshire, by 22%, he didn't win as big as he should have if the race is a tie, which would've been 29%. Both states, therefore, imply a Clinton lead of roughly 6 or 7 points nationwide. Which confirms my feeling that those results were decent for Clinton, even though they looked pretty lousy. To be sure it's remarkably that Sanders is within 6 or 7 points nationally, but that's still a pace that has Hillary winning. If that pace holds, we should see Hillary winning by nearly 10 points in Nevada and by 16 or 17 in South Carolina; more likely we'll see a similar average result between those two states but highly disparate individual signals.
In any case, it's just something to keep an eye on, as a guide to interpreting each state's results.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
The Sanders Campaign Is Becoming A Problem
When Bernie Sanders announced his campaign for President, I thought, okay, this could do some good. Put some more aggressively left-wing issues on the agenda, help move the party, and presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton, in a more liberal direction, expand the Overton window, etc. But there's always been a lurking danger that it would become something else, that it would start stoking liberal dissatisfaction with the Democrats and with Hillary, in a way that would imperil our chances of holding the White House.
Well, I'm increasingly feeling like his campaign is turning into that more dangerous version. And this "HillarySoProgressive" thing is perhaps the most extreme example of it. This all started when Bernie and Hillary got into a Twitter war yesterday that started with Sanders (or his campaign staff, not actually sure which) saying that "You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive," and then proceeded to rattle off various un-progressive things Hillary's done: raising money from Wall St., taking a long time before coming out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Keystone pipeline, and supporting the Iraq war. Hillary (or her staff, probably) shot back, with various progressive things Hillary has done, and with repeatedly pointing out Sanders' less-than-pure history on gun control. Now various Sanders supporters have started this HillarySoProgressive hashtag basically mocking the idea that she's any sort of liberal. (Seriously, does no one say "liberal" anymore?) The tweets this Vox discussion of the tag references bring up, in total, the fact that Clinton takes donations from Wall St., the fact that she has, from time to time, been seen in the company of Wall St. executives, that she does not support reinstating Glass-Steagall, and her 2004 opposition to gay marriage. Oh, and also a fake Clinton/Gore '92 bumper sticker design featuring the Confederate flag.
The word that keeps coming to my mind to describe all of this is "disgusting." And not just because of the Tea Party-esque obsession with absolute purity (while, of course, excusing their own candidate's extreme lack of purity on the gun control issue), the strict and exclusive concept of the "progressive" movement, the suggestion that anyone who doesn't agree with them on every single issue is the enemy. It's all of that, too, of course; some of this stuff almost feels like it has an "are you now, or have you ever been, a capitalist?" feel to it.
But also, like... these are remarkably petty things to excommunicate someone from your movement over, aren't they? Bernie's remarks about how she took her time coming out against TPP and Keystone feel particularly silly, to me. I actually know several very left-wing people who thought both of those issues were in fact somewhat complicated, and that the case against each was overstated. And even beside that, like, since when is taking your time to think something over a grievous sin? Is it that one must not only have the right positions but also take all of them quickly enough, or you're out of the movement? That's insane, isn't it?
As of course is this persistent accusation of massive corruption on Hillary's part, which of course is never explicitly stated as such, because that would be "going negative" and "dirty politics," but that's what it is.
Add it all up and I feel like this campaign is becoming so toxic that it's running a real risk of doing serious damage to the Democratic Party and to the liberal cause going forward. It's essentially becoming a larger-scale version of Nader 2000, which, like, do the people supporting Bernie remember how that went? Do they remember George Bush? Have they inspected Marco Rubio's platform? As Matt Yglesias said the other day, it's basically the platform for those who think the problem with the Bush Administration is that we should've tried bigger tax cuts and more wars. In the face of this, do you really want to set up a Spanish Inquisition to root out every last little trace of heresy within the progressive movement?
I'm still hopeful that this can end well, but I'm increasingly unsure that it will. Sanders himself seems to have been bitten by the ambition bug, maybe for the first time in his life, and he's got a lot of work ahead of him repairing the damage he's been causing. When he loses, and he will lose, he better take a page out of Hillary's playbook and give her one hell of a ringing endorsement.
Well, I'm increasingly feeling like his campaign is turning into that more dangerous version. And this "HillarySoProgressive" thing is perhaps the most extreme example of it. This all started when Bernie and Hillary got into a Twitter war yesterday that started with Sanders (or his campaign staff, not actually sure which) saying that "You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive," and then proceeded to rattle off various un-progressive things Hillary's done: raising money from Wall St., taking a long time before coming out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Keystone pipeline, and supporting the Iraq war. Hillary (or her staff, probably) shot back, with various progressive things Hillary has done, and with repeatedly pointing out Sanders' less-than-pure history on gun control. Now various Sanders supporters have started this HillarySoProgressive hashtag basically mocking the idea that she's any sort of liberal. (Seriously, does no one say "liberal" anymore?) The tweets this Vox discussion of the tag references bring up, in total, the fact that Clinton takes donations from Wall St., the fact that she has, from time to time, been seen in the company of Wall St. executives, that she does not support reinstating Glass-Steagall, and her 2004 opposition to gay marriage. Oh, and also a fake Clinton/Gore '92 bumper sticker design featuring the Confederate flag.
The word that keeps coming to my mind to describe all of this is "disgusting." And not just because of the Tea Party-esque obsession with absolute purity (while, of course, excusing their own candidate's extreme lack of purity on the gun control issue), the strict and exclusive concept of the "progressive" movement, the suggestion that anyone who doesn't agree with them on every single issue is the enemy. It's all of that, too, of course; some of this stuff almost feels like it has an "are you now, or have you ever been, a capitalist?" feel to it.
But also, like... these are remarkably petty things to excommunicate someone from your movement over, aren't they? Bernie's remarks about how she took her time coming out against TPP and Keystone feel particularly silly, to me. I actually know several very left-wing people who thought both of those issues were in fact somewhat complicated, and that the case against each was overstated. And even beside that, like, since when is taking your time to think something over a grievous sin? Is it that one must not only have the right positions but also take all of them quickly enough, or you're out of the movement? That's insane, isn't it?
As of course is this persistent accusation of massive corruption on Hillary's part, which of course is never explicitly stated as such, because that would be "going negative" and "dirty politics," but that's what it is.
Add it all up and I feel like this campaign is becoming so toxic that it's running a real risk of doing serious damage to the Democratic Party and to the liberal cause going forward. It's essentially becoming a larger-scale version of Nader 2000, which, like, do the people supporting Bernie remember how that went? Do they remember George Bush? Have they inspected Marco Rubio's platform? As Matt Yglesias said the other day, it's basically the platform for those who think the problem with the Bush Administration is that we should've tried bigger tax cuts and more wars. In the face of this, do you really want to set up a Spanish Inquisition to root out every last little trace of heresy within the progressive movement?
I'm still hopeful that this can end well, but I'm increasingly unsure that it will. Sanders himself seems to have been bitten by the ambition bug, maybe for the first time in his life, and he's got a lot of work ahead of him repairing the damage he's been causing. When he loses, and he will lose, he better take a page out of Hillary's playbook and give her one hell of a ringing endorsement.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
On the Hyde Amendment, Single-Payer, Bernie Sanders, and Socialism
Hillary Clinton recently called for repealing the Hyde Amendment, the federal law which prohibits federal funds from being spent on abortion. That is, among other things, surprisingly radical for a candidate most known for her cautious, calculating, pragmatic manner. It's also interesting because Bernie Sanders, the generally more radical candidate opposing her, has not, to the best of anyone's knowledge, come out in favor of repealing the Hyde Amendment. Which is funny, when you think about it, because Sanders is thoroughly pro-choice, and of course is most notorious these days for his proposed single-payer health care system. In which the federal government would pay for all the health care.
But if the Hyde Amendment is still around, then that won't include abortion.
At best this would lead to a market for supplemental abortion insurance, or just to women paying for abortion out of pocket. That's the at-best scenario, and it's pretty much a nightmare from a reproductive rights perspective. The worst-case scenario would be if private insurance, and maybe even private out-of-pocket purchase of medical treatment, were actually outlawed, which would effectively outlaw abortion itself. (That would almost certainly be unconstitutional under current doctrine, certainly as to abortion and maybe more generally.)
So, the first thing to say about all this is that someone needs to ask Bernie Sanders about the Hyde Amendment. Like, yesterday. But that's not really the crux of the issue: he'll almost certainly say he supports repealing it. He assuredly does support it on the merits, and there's no great political loss to admitting it.
The deeper issue, I think, is what it says about him that he didn't think of this when he was drafting his proposal. Because, it's a big issue. In a single-payer system, every aspect of medical treatment is subject to intense politicization, and this is a country where that could get seriously problematic, very fast. This is actually one of the virtues of the liberal-capitalist order: it's very good at letting people decide what they want for themselves, and having there be people willing to give it to them (so long as they can afford it--aye, there's the rub), even if other people aren't too happy about that. Single-payer, even if it allowed private insurance around the margins, would complicate that happy "live and let live (if you're not poor)" picture a lot. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing; that "if you're not poor" part is a really big problem. But it's not just a fantasy issue. It's a genuine cost to achieving an awful lot of good, and Sanders shows no sign of recognizing that it must be paid. This is for me the big issue with the fact that, at certain points in the past, he wanted to let the states administer the new single-payer system. Really, Bernie Sanders? An awful lot of states would make decisions about what should and should not be covered that you would really not like. He's backed off that position for now, but the lack of attention to the analogous issues at the federal level, e.g. the Hyde Amendment, doesn't give me a ton of confidence that he understands the real problem here, or has good ideas for what to do about it.
And then of course there's just the fact that the politicization of medicine would add an entirely different dimension to the fight. Paul Krugman has been talking a bunch lately about how it's tough to get a single-payer system from where we are because it really would impose losses on a bunch of important stakeholders. Well, once you remember that the Hyde Amendment exists we've got a whole other fight on our hands. There's been controversy in recent years about requiring employers to provide insurance that covers contraceptives. Imagine the explosion that would ensue if we proposed to have the federal government cover the full cost of abortions for everyone. Which is not to say that we shouldn't do it! We should, in an ideal world. This is a fight that deserves to be won. That's slightly different, though, from saying that it would be won, or even that the victory would be worth the fight.*
More to the point, perhaps, is that Sanders does not seem to anticipate that fight, or the others like it that would surely come. And this has me thinking about a recent Ta-Nehesi Coates article and its discussion of the view that Sanders and his ideological comrades have toward racial justice issues:
And similarly with issues of sex and gender. There's a lot about the social democratic agenda that is deeply threatening to the patriarchy, there really is. Just as there is with white supremacy. Someone like Sanders is right about that. But he seems to assume that this means we should focus our energy on attacking Capital (capitalized for sinister emphasis, of course), and that when we defeat it, all those identity-politics fights will take care of themselves. But I feel like if you don't appreciate the independent power of the patriarchy, of white supremacy, in American political life, then you won't appreciate the true nature of the struggle to make America better. And you'll lose. Because you'll rush headlong at the one enemy you're focused on and let yourself be surrounded by the other armies in their coalition. Better to attack each of those allies--whose support Capital needs but to whose defense Capital cannot necessarily come--in turn, and then leave the main enemy weakened and alone. But defeating white supremacy, defeating the patriarchy, that's a massive undertaking. It'll take years, decades really. Maybe generations. And it's not a fight that Bernie Sanders seems to see himself as fighting. Hillary Clinton does, if in an incremental way (though her opposition to the Hyde Amendment is impressively bold).
And that, I guess, is the socialist case for voting Hillary.
*Perhaps my favorite part of that fight would be the inevitable court case arguing that covering abortion in the single-payer system violated religious freedom. Because the logic there is damn near identical to the similar claims being made about mandated private insurance in a case like Hobby Lobby, but if we move it to the context of a government program then it becomes obviously absurd. There's no right to have the government not spend its money on things you disapprove of for religious reasons; that's absurd. We can tax you, and once we tax you it's not your money anymore. (The one exception is that we can't spend it actually supporting religious institutions you don't support, per the Establishment Clause.)
But if the Hyde Amendment is still around, then that won't include abortion.
At best this would lead to a market for supplemental abortion insurance, or just to women paying for abortion out of pocket. That's the at-best scenario, and it's pretty much a nightmare from a reproductive rights perspective. The worst-case scenario would be if private insurance, and maybe even private out-of-pocket purchase of medical treatment, were actually outlawed, which would effectively outlaw abortion itself. (That would almost certainly be unconstitutional under current doctrine, certainly as to abortion and maybe more generally.)
So, the first thing to say about all this is that someone needs to ask Bernie Sanders about the Hyde Amendment. Like, yesterday. But that's not really the crux of the issue: he'll almost certainly say he supports repealing it. He assuredly does support it on the merits, and there's no great political loss to admitting it.
The deeper issue, I think, is what it says about him that he didn't think of this when he was drafting his proposal. Because, it's a big issue. In a single-payer system, every aspect of medical treatment is subject to intense politicization, and this is a country where that could get seriously problematic, very fast. This is actually one of the virtues of the liberal-capitalist order: it's very good at letting people decide what they want for themselves, and having there be people willing to give it to them (so long as they can afford it--aye, there's the rub), even if other people aren't too happy about that. Single-payer, even if it allowed private insurance around the margins, would complicate that happy "live and let live (if you're not poor)" picture a lot. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing; that "if you're not poor" part is a really big problem. But it's not just a fantasy issue. It's a genuine cost to achieving an awful lot of good, and Sanders shows no sign of recognizing that it must be paid. This is for me the big issue with the fact that, at certain points in the past, he wanted to let the states administer the new single-payer system. Really, Bernie Sanders? An awful lot of states would make decisions about what should and should not be covered that you would really not like. He's backed off that position for now, but the lack of attention to the analogous issues at the federal level, e.g. the Hyde Amendment, doesn't give me a ton of confidence that he understands the real problem here, or has good ideas for what to do about it.
And then of course there's just the fact that the politicization of medicine would add an entirely different dimension to the fight. Paul Krugman has been talking a bunch lately about how it's tough to get a single-payer system from where we are because it really would impose losses on a bunch of important stakeholders. Well, once you remember that the Hyde Amendment exists we've got a whole other fight on our hands. There's been controversy in recent years about requiring employers to provide insurance that covers contraceptives. Imagine the explosion that would ensue if we proposed to have the federal government cover the full cost of abortions for everyone. Which is not to say that we shouldn't do it! We should, in an ideal world. This is a fight that deserves to be won. That's slightly different, though, from saying that it would be won, or even that the victory would be worth the fight.*
More to the point, perhaps, is that Sanders does not seem to anticipate that fight, or the others like it that would surely come. And this has me thinking about a recent Ta-Nehesi Coates article and its discussion of the view that Sanders and his ideological comrades have toward racial justice issues:
"[Sanders sees] black people not so much as a class specifically injured by white supremacy, but rather, as a group which magically suffers from disproportionate poverty.My feeling about this is that it's almost the other way around. It's not that adopting socialism would make racism and its effects disappear. It's that racism itself, as a separate and distinct ideology, is a big part of what's stopping us from being more socialistic. There was some research, which I could probably dig up if I wanted to spend a bit of time on it, trying to figure out why, descriptively, causally, why the United States has such a meager welfare system. Ultimately the study concluded that it's all about race, or more specifically racism: American whites don't have solidarity with black people, and therefore resent having their wealth redistributed to black people in a way that middle-class Germans don't resent having their wealth given to poorer Germans. (Interestingly we can see a related phenomenon playing out in the European Union right now; it turns out the Germans and the French don't have that much solidarity with the Greeks after all, and therefore experience a similar resentment and a reluctance to support the much-poorer people of Greece.)
This is the “class first” approach, originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible."
And similarly with issues of sex and gender. There's a lot about the social democratic agenda that is deeply threatening to the patriarchy, there really is. Just as there is with white supremacy. Someone like Sanders is right about that. But he seems to assume that this means we should focus our energy on attacking Capital (capitalized for sinister emphasis, of course), and that when we defeat it, all those identity-politics fights will take care of themselves. But I feel like if you don't appreciate the independent power of the patriarchy, of white supremacy, in American political life, then you won't appreciate the true nature of the struggle to make America better. And you'll lose. Because you'll rush headlong at the one enemy you're focused on and let yourself be surrounded by the other armies in their coalition. Better to attack each of those allies--whose support Capital needs but to whose defense Capital cannot necessarily come--in turn, and then leave the main enemy weakened and alone. But defeating white supremacy, defeating the patriarchy, that's a massive undertaking. It'll take years, decades really. Maybe generations. And it's not a fight that Bernie Sanders seems to see himself as fighting. Hillary Clinton does, if in an incremental way (though her opposition to the Hyde Amendment is impressively bold).
And that, I guess, is the socialist case for voting Hillary.
*Perhaps my favorite part of that fight would be the inevitable court case arguing that covering abortion in the single-payer system violated religious freedom. Because the logic there is damn near identical to the similar claims being made about mandated private insurance in a case like Hobby Lobby, but if we move it to the context of a government program then it becomes obviously absurd. There's no right to have the government not spend its money on things you disapprove of for religious reasons; that's absurd. We can tax you, and once we tax you it's not your money anymore. (The one exception is that we can't spend it actually supporting religious institutions you don't support, per the Establishment Clause.)
Monday, November 16, 2015
On Hillary Clinton, Wall Street, and 9/11
So, in what might have been the single most memorable moment of the debate (other than that time when I was genuinely shocked to hear that Sanders actually wants to let the states run his single-payer health care program, like, actually), Bernie Sanders impugned Hillary Clinton's integrity over her donations from Wall Street (despite his protestations that he did no such thing) and then Hillary responded by invoking 9/11. It was pretty cringe-worthy. In no way is this post meant to deny that. What this post is meant to do, however, is suggest that Hillary has at least a very plausible argument for why those campaign contributions shouldn't be held against her the way Sanders wants them to be.
Let's start with getting at what Hillary was actually trying to say, or at least the coherent argument behind her (again, admittedly) facepalm-level 9/11 framing. The donations from Wall Street are on the record, and they almost entirely date from her tenure as Senator from New York. Sanders' hypothesis is that the bankers gave her this money because they know that, no matter how tough she might talk on financial regulation, she won't actually do it. Hillary's suggestion to the contrary is that these were essentially donations of gratitude for her service to the state and city in the wake of 9/11. That's... that's very plausible, right? Especially bearing in mind that when we say "Wall Street donations," we don't just mean donations from the corporations themselves, or even from their executives. Donations from any of their employees count for this purpose. And it sounds pretty plausible to me to think that a lot of Wall Street bankers might have donated to any and every politician who played a meaningful role in the 9/11 rebuilding efforts. It might not be true that that's what motivated the donations, but it's a valid and on-point argument to make.
And really, she didn't even need to get that specific. She was a Senator from New York! I have a feeling that anyone in that position is going to get a lot of donations from Wall Street. I'm sure Chuck Schumer has a long trail of such donations to his name. You donate even to candidates who are relatively speaking not on your side, especially because New York is a solid blue state with little hope of electing Republicans to the Senate. And, sure, you're probably hoping for some measure of access and influence, but, contra what the moderator said, candidates aren't actually indebted to their donors. Again, it's genuinely possible that Hillary went around to various Wall Street potential contributors and said, give me some money and I'll keep an eye out for your interests going forward. That would be bad! But it's also genuinely possible that a bunch of Wall Street bankers gave her money just because she was the only game in town, and she didn't outright reject their donations.
This sort of ties in with another dimension of this whole thing. She was Senator from New York. All the financial types from Wall Street were among her constituents. There are many valid theories of representation on which it would have been proper for her to promote Wall Street's interests, insofar as they were New York's interests, as against the rest of the country. This would have to be within reason, of course; politicians shouldn't support the interests of every scumbag who happens to live in their jurisdiction. But we don't think there's anything weird about Senators from Iowa promoting corn interests or whatever. It's natural, if slightly unsavory.
The question is whether this works for or against Hillary. And that depends, I think, on whether we think that a person who has once favored a certain interest because they represented that region will always be beholden to that interest, even if they now represent a broader constituency. I tend to think the answer here is "no." Kirsten Gillibrand, Hillary's successor in the Senate, is an interesting example. She used to be a Representative from a reasonably conservative district in upstate New York, and her record in the House was reasonably moderate. That led people to be concerned that she wouldn't be as liberal as a Democratic Senator from New York ought to be. But in fact, she's been great! Because now she's not representing a constituency that requires her to be more moderate. By analogy, even if Hillary did take Wall Street contributions, and aye, even if she did take relatively pro-Wall Street stances when she was Senator from New York, that doesn't mean she would do so as President, representing the whole nation.
Now, Sanders and his supporters could try to argue it the other way. That, a candidate's once having been willing to pander to a local interest, we should always view them with suspicion on that issue. But I really don't think he wants to open up that can of worms. Because he's confessed, more or less candidly, that his relatively moderate record on guns was largely a pander to his rural Vermont constituents. Which would look an awful lot like Hillary's purported record on financial regulation--if we grant the assumption that Hillary has been soft on financial regulation historically. If we get into playing this game, it's just not at all clear that Sanders is categorically more pure than Clinton. And that's not even getting into all the companies whose employees he's received donations from over the years, a list which is less than wholly devoid of what we might think of as villains. The sum totals are a lot lower 'cause he represented Vermont, which has about as many people in it as like a city block in Manhattan, but the logic would seem to apply reasonably well.
There's also an additional level as concerns Hillary: she's a lawyer. She went to Yale Law School. (Woohoo!) She knows a lot of people in the world of law, which has a lot of overlap with the world of finance. A lot of these people probably gave to her campaign because they know her, and (perhaps unlike their bosses or the corporate entities for which they work) they honestly don't care that much about the public policy dimensions of politics.
The bottom line is that there are an awful lot of genuinely good reasons to think that Clinton's past Wall Street donations do not mean that she will be in any way beholden to the financial industry if she becomes President. Again, it might in fact be the case that she would be beholden to them. But there are good reasons for thinking otherwise, and it's basically a matter of contestable fact. And while, again, I agree that her invocation of 9/11 was extremely poorly done, there was an argument at the heart of those remarks, one that fits into the basic pattern of the more general arguments for why we shouldn't be troubled by her donations. So yes, it's totally fair game to call her out for her heavy-handed, Giuliani-esque flag-wrapping, but it's wrong to pivot from that to simply assuming that she is in fact vaguely corrupt in the was Sanders was insinuating.
Let's start with getting at what Hillary was actually trying to say, or at least the coherent argument behind her (again, admittedly) facepalm-level 9/11 framing. The donations from Wall Street are on the record, and they almost entirely date from her tenure as Senator from New York. Sanders' hypothesis is that the bankers gave her this money because they know that, no matter how tough she might talk on financial regulation, she won't actually do it. Hillary's suggestion to the contrary is that these were essentially donations of gratitude for her service to the state and city in the wake of 9/11. That's... that's very plausible, right? Especially bearing in mind that when we say "Wall Street donations," we don't just mean donations from the corporations themselves, or even from their executives. Donations from any of their employees count for this purpose. And it sounds pretty plausible to me to think that a lot of Wall Street bankers might have donated to any and every politician who played a meaningful role in the 9/11 rebuilding efforts. It might not be true that that's what motivated the donations, but it's a valid and on-point argument to make.
And really, she didn't even need to get that specific. She was a Senator from New York! I have a feeling that anyone in that position is going to get a lot of donations from Wall Street. I'm sure Chuck Schumer has a long trail of such donations to his name. You donate even to candidates who are relatively speaking not on your side, especially because New York is a solid blue state with little hope of electing Republicans to the Senate. And, sure, you're probably hoping for some measure of access and influence, but, contra what the moderator said, candidates aren't actually indebted to their donors. Again, it's genuinely possible that Hillary went around to various Wall Street potential contributors and said, give me some money and I'll keep an eye out for your interests going forward. That would be bad! But it's also genuinely possible that a bunch of Wall Street bankers gave her money just because she was the only game in town, and she didn't outright reject their donations.
This sort of ties in with another dimension of this whole thing. She was Senator from New York. All the financial types from Wall Street were among her constituents. There are many valid theories of representation on which it would have been proper for her to promote Wall Street's interests, insofar as they were New York's interests, as against the rest of the country. This would have to be within reason, of course; politicians shouldn't support the interests of every scumbag who happens to live in their jurisdiction. But we don't think there's anything weird about Senators from Iowa promoting corn interests or whatever. It's natural, if slightly unsavory.
The question is whether this works for or against Hillary. And that depends, I think, on whether we think that a person who has once favored a certain interest because they represented that region will always be beholden to that interest, even if they now represent a broader constituency. I tend to think the answer here is "no." Kirsten Gillibrand, Hillary's successor in the Senate, is an interesting example. She used to be a Representative from a reasonably conservative district in upstate New York, and her record in the House was reasonably moderate. That led people to be concerned that she wouldn't be as liberal as a Democratic Senator from New York ought to be. But in fact, she's been great! Because now she's not representing a constituency that requires her to be more moderate. By analogy, even if Hillary did take Wall Street contributions, and aye, even if she did take relatively pro-Wall Street stances when she was Senator from New York, that doesn't mean she would do so as President, representing the whole nation.
Now, Sanders and his supporters could try to argue it the other way. That, a candidate's once having been willing to pander to a local interest, we should always view them with suspicion on that issue. But I really don't think he wants to open up that can of worms. Because he's confessed, more or less candidly, that his relatively moderate record on guns was largely a pander to his rural Vermont constituents. Which would look an awful lot like Hillary's purported record on financial regulation--if we grant the assumption that Hillary has been soft on financial regulation historically. If we get into playing this game, it's just not at all clear that Sanders is categorically more pure than Clinton. And that's not even getting into all the companies whose employees he's received donations from over the years, a list which is less than wholly devoid of what we might think of as villains. The sum totals are a lot lower 'cause he represented Vermont, which has about as many people in it as like a city block in Manhattan, but the logic would seem to apply reasonably well.
There's also an additional level as concerns Hillary: she's a lawyer. She went to Yale Law School. (Woohoo!) She knows a lot of people in the world of law, which has a lot of overlap with the world of finance. A lot of these people probably gave to her campaign because they know her, and (perhaps unlike their bosses or the corporate entities for which they work) they honestly don't care that much about the public policy dimensions of politics.
The bottom line is that there are an awful lot of genuinely good reasons to think that Clinton's past Wall Street donations do not mean that she will be in any way beholden to the financial industry if she becomes President. Again, it might in fact be the case that she would be beholden to them. But there are good reasons for thinking otherwise, and it's basically a matter of contestable fact. And while, again, I agree that her invocation of 9/11 was extremely poorly done, there was an argument at the heart of those remarks, one that fits into the basic pattern of the more general arguments for why we shouldn't be troubled by her donations. So yes, it's totally fair game to call her out for her heavy-handed, Giuliani-esque flag-wrapping, but it's wrong to pivot from that to simply assuming that she is in fact vaguely corrupt in the was Sanders was insinuating.
Monday, May 11, 2015
White Male Victimization Makes Sense If You Think White Men Are Superior
Jonathan Chait has a nice little post slashing to tiny little bits the assertion by one Joseph Epstein that Barack Obama and, if she is elected, Hillary Clinton would be "affirmative-action Presidents." He notes that Epstein educes precisely zero evidence that Obama or Clinton are unqualified on the merits to be President, or especially that they are uniquely so in American history. Moreover, he notes that the period when Epstein thinks Presidents were chosen purely on the basis of merit just happened to produce 43 white men in a row, the last of whom was the son of a different President. Epstein's argument that these 43 men were elected because of their "intrinsic qualities" rather than on the basis of "accidents of [their] birth" is flatly absurd. Chait goes on to note that the general thrust of the piece, viz. that white men have become a "subaltern class," is hard to square with the fact that today's elite is still overwhelmingly comprised of white men. All of this is true.
Unless, of course, you believe that white men are categorically superior to people who aren't white men. Which, y'know, used to be a pretty mainstream position. "White supremacy" is not just the belief that white people ought to subjugate non-white people; it's the belief that white people are better than non-white people. Now, this belief is what we might, if we were being polite, call "demonstrably false," and if we were not being polite we might call "crazy." But that doesn't mean plenty of people don't still believe it. And if you have this belief, and the analogous, equally crazy belief vis-a-vis women (and mind you, the belief in its truest form isn't just that most white men are superior on the merits to most non-whites or non-men, it's that there's a categorical distinction between white men and others in terms of merit*), then the fact that any of the social elite aren't white men is evidence of a great big problem. Specifically it means that they must have attained their position through "social justice" and "victimization" politics, not through merit, because it is impossible that they have merit. If you believe in white supremacy as an axiomatic principle of reality, then Barack Obama is not, cannot be a counterexample that disproves white supremacy. He is still an inferior black person, and therefore something must be wrong with any system that allows him to be President. And when that system elected 43 white guys in a row beforehand, that was it functioning well, and on the basis of merit, since all the merit resides with the white guys.
So any time someone talks about how Obama or Clinton don't really deserve to be President, and are just "affirmative action" candidates, they're tipping you off to the fact that they are a good old-fashioned, totally unreconstructed bigot who really, truly believes that white men are superior to everyone else. Nice of them to let us know, really.
*Specifically the kind of merit that's required for things like holding public office or otherwise wielding power in society. Women are perfectly meritorious, for some things; those things just aren't being President, or anything remotely resembling being President. (...is what the crazy bigots, think, of course.)
Unless, of course, you believe that white men are categorically superior to people who aren't white men. Which, y'know, used to be a pretty mainstream position. "White supremacy" is not just the belief that white people ought to subjugate non-white people; it's the belief that white people are better than non-white people. Now, this belief is what we might, if we were being polite, call "demonstrably false," and if we were not being polite we might call "crazy." But that doesn't mean plenty of people don't still believe it. And if you have this belief, and the analogous, equally crazy belief vis-a-vis women (and mind you, the belief in its truest form isn't just that most white men are superior on the merits to most non-whites or non-men, it's that there's a categorical distinction between white men and others in terms of merit*), then the fact that any of the social elite aren't white men is evidence of a great big problem. Specifically it means that they must have attained their position through "social justice" and "victimization" politics, not through merit, because it is impossible that they have merit. If you believe in white supremacy as an axiomatic principle of reality, then Barack Obama is not, cannot be a counterexample that disproves white supremacy. He is still an inferior black person, and therefore something must be wrong with any system that allows him to be President. And when that system elected 43 white guys in a row beforehand, that was it functioning well, and on the basis of merit, since all the merit resides with the white guys.
So any time someone talks about how Obama or Clinton don't really deserve to be President, and are just "affirmative action" candidates, they're tipping you off to the fact that they are a good old-fashioned, totally unreconstructed bigot who really, truly believes that white men are superior to everyone else. Nice of them to let us know, really.
*Specifically the kind of merit that's required for things like holding public office or otherwise wielding power in society. Women are perfectly meritorious, for some things; those things just aren't being President, or anything remotely resembling being President. (...is what the crazy bigots, think, of course.)
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Clinton '16
Seriously. That woman had bloody well better run for President.
I just got back from hearing Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, former Senator from New York, former First Lady of Arkansas and then of the United States, and Yale Law School Class of 1973, give a talk on the occasion of her acceptance of the Law School's Award of Merit. It was awesome. There was a moment, a few minutes after the nominal starting time, when all of a sudden the audience just started applauding. I hadn't noticed anything that would occasion it, but it didn't take me long to figure out what was going on: her husband had just walked in the side door of Woolsey Hall. He kept a remarkably low profile, sitting in a front-row seat during the talk and then doing some hob-nobbing with the important types who were sitting on the front of the ground floor. Hillary entered a little while after Bill, to even louder applause if anything. Her speech was very good: I wouldn't call it great, mostly because it wasn't anything particularly novel. It was mostly reminiscence about her time at Yale and discussion of the importance of children's welfare, the former of which she delivered with great charisma and the latter of which is obviously a very compelling subject.
What I was really struck by was, as I said, how charismatic she was. That's not exactly in keeping with her reputation, both during the 1990s and during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Of course that reputation is doubtless very influenced by various forms of sexism, along with the fact that she kind of ran into a charisma buzz-saw in '08. But it did feel like there was a difference between her whole demeanor at this event and what I remember from the last campaign. And I have a theory, not surprisingly. I think she (quite in common with Al Gore) often suffers from a sense that she can't just be herself to be successful in politics, that she needs to dissemble about her true passions and motivations. With Al Gore that means toning down the wonky environmentalism, mostly. With Hillary it's about toning down the wonky feminism. And I mean that word broadly. She certainly is not a radical feminist, not by the standards of, say, the era when she attended the Yale Law School, but her overall agenda is undeniably the expanded feminist one. Women's rights, certainly, a movement she practically embodies at this point. But also stereotypically female "nurturing" issues, like health care and children's issues. And now, as for instance in the recent speech that Dean Robert Post quoted before her talk, gay rights, which like women's rights are just, she argues, human rights.
And her particular vantage point on these issues is, I think, an uncommonly community-focused one. She wrote, of course, a book called It Takes a Village, and I think she very deeply believes that attaining all these modern social liberal values and deconstructing the old oppressive power structures, which she is very much in favor of, shouldn't result in a thoroughly individualistic and isolating society. That idea, of a true community built not around the maintenance of power imbalances and the enforcement of certain behavioral norms but around simply caring about each others' well-being, is one that sits a little bit outside the ordinary terms of the social discourse. Liberals usually focus on the part where we tear down the oppressive power structures, following Marx in not really thinking too much about what the post-revolutionary world will look like. Hillary Clinton does think about precisely that, about what to do once those problematic social structures are defeated, and about what problems their defeat might actually create. That's a tremendously important complex of philosophical issues, and political issues as well.
And I think that when Hillary lets herself be, whole-heartedly and openly, the community-oriented feminist that she is, she's got a lot of energy, and it gets infectious. But too often, I think, she's had to shy away from that, out of fear that her perspective is just not a popular one. That too many unenlightened men whose votes she needs will find her "shrill," that too many people will find her "it takes a village" theme too feminine to take seriously from a politician. And there's certainly some truth to those fears; certainly there was twenty years ago. But I think those dangers have lessened a lot of late. Social liberalism is quite genuinely dominant right now, at least social liberalism on the terms of the past couple of generations. Gender equality, challenging gender norms, etc., all of that stuff is just plain winning. And I'd like to think that it's no longer the case that a woman talking about how we need to take care of each other won't be taken seriously.
So if Hillary Clinton runs for President in 2016, which I devoutly hope she will, here's my advice to her, other than sit back, relax, and waltz to the nomination. Well, actually, that's part of it. The advice is to be herself, to let her feminist flag fly, to talk about health care and child-raising, all the things that are her true political passions. And the part about how she's got a fifty-point lead in Democratic primary polls and substantial leads over all the Republicans serves to demonstrate that there are plenty of people in this country who like Hillary Clinton's self. Yes, there are still plenty who don't like her self. The Limbaugh types, and their less-vile-but-not-much-more-enlightened cousins. But there are fewer and fewer of those, and more and more people who just plain respect Hillary for having spent decades being a badass, hyper-competent barrier-shattering stateswoman who has long since deserved to be President. She doesn't need to change anything or hide anything about herself to become President. She just needs to take a page out of her husband's book, and be her own awesome self.
I just got back from hearing Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, former Senator from New York, former First Lady of Arkansas and then of the United States, and Yale Law School Class of 1973, give a talk on the occasion of her acceptance of the Law School's Award of Merit. It was awesome. There was a moment, a few minutes after the nominal starting time, when all of a sudden the audience just started applauding. I hadn't noticed anything that would occasion it, but it didn't take me long to figure out what was going on: her husband had just walked in the side door of Woolsey Hall. He kept a remarkably low profile, sitting in a front-row seat during the talk and then doing some hob-nobbing with the important types who were sitting on the front of the ground floor. Hillary entered a little while after Bill, to even louder applause if anything. Her speech was very good: I wouldn't call it great, mostly because it wasn't anything particularly novel. It was mostly reminiscence about her time at Yale and discussion of the importance of children's welfare, the former of which she delivered with great charisma and the latter of which is obviously a very compelling subject.
What I was really struck by was, as I said, how charismatic she was. That's not exactly in keeping with her reputation, both during the 1990s and during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Of course that reputation is doubtless very influenced by various forms of sexism, along with the fact that she kind of ran into a charisma buzz-saw in '08. But it did feel like there was a difference between her whole demeanor at this event and what I remember from the last campaign. And I have a theory, not surprisingly. I think she (quite in common with Al Gore) often suffers from a sense that she can't just be herself to be successful in politics, that she needs to dissemble about her true passions and motivations. With Al Gore that means toning down the wonky environmentalism, mostly. With Hillary it's about toning down the wonky feminism. And I mean that word broadly. She certainly is not a radical feminist, not by the standards of, say, the era when she attended the Yale Law School, but her overall agenda is undeniably the expanded feminist one. Women's rights, certainly, a movement she practically embodies at this point. But also stereotypically female "nurturing" issues, like health care and children's issues. And now, as for instance in the recent speech that Dean Robert Post quoted before her talk, gay rights, which like women's rights are just, she argues, human rights.
And her particular vantage point on these issues is, I think, an uncommonly community-focused one. She wrote, of course, a book called It Takes a Village, and I think she very deeply believes that attaining all these modern social liberal values and deconstructing the old oppressive power structures, which she is very much in favor of, shouldn't result in a thoroughly individualistic and isolating society. That idea, of a true community built not around the maintenance of power imbalances and the enforcement of certain behavioral norms but around simply caring about each others' well-being, is one that sits a little bit outside the ordinary terms of the social discourse. Liberals usually focus on the part where we tear down the oppressive power structures, following Marx in not really thinking too much about what the post-revolutionary world will look like. Hillary Clinton does think about precisely that, about what to do once those problematic social structures are defeated, and about what problems their defeat might actually create. That's a tremendously important complex of philosophical issues, and political issues as well.
And I think that when Hillary lets herself be, whole-heartedly and openly, the community-oriented feminist that she is, she's got a lot of energy, and it gets infectious. But too often, I think, she's had to shy away from that, out of fear that her perspective is just not a popular one. That too many unenlightened men whose votes she needs will find her "shrill," that too many people will find her "it takes a village" theme too feminine to take seriously from a politician. And there's certainly some truth to those fears; certainly there was twenty years ago. But I think those dangers have lessened a lot of late. Social liberalism is quite genuinely dominant right now, at least social liberalism on the terms of the past couple of generations. Gender equality, challenging gender norms, etc., all of that stuff is just plain winning. And I'd like to think that it's no longer the case that a woman talking about how we need to take care of each other won't be taken seriously.
So if Hillary Clinton runs for President in 2016, which I devoutly hope she will, here's my advice to her, other than sit back, relax, and waltz to the nomination. Well, actually, that's part of it. The advice is to be herself, to let her feminist flag fly, to talk about health care and child-raising, all the things that are her true political passions. And the part about how she's got a fifty-point lead in Democratic primary polls and substantial leads over all the Republicans serves to demonstrate that there are plenty of people in this country who like Hillary Clinton's self. Yes, there are still plenty who don't like her self. The Limbaugh types, and their less-vile-but-not-much-more-enlightened cousins. But there are fewer and fewer of those, and more and more people who just plain respect Hillary for having spent decades being a badass, hyper-competent barrier-shattering stateswoman who has long since deserved to be President. She doesn't need to change anything or hide anything about herself to become President. She just needs to take a page out of her husband's book, and be her own awesome self.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)