Is There Any Analogy to What Just Happened?

Maybe if George McGovern had won the White House in 1972, and then kept fighting the Vietnam War.

Or if Bill Clinton had urged health care and the Democrats had passed it 50 times in the prior 8 years.

Or if Reagan had won and shrunk the military budget.

Or if Carter had not passed amnesty.

In, other words, it is hard to imagine a more central promise made by a party then given the tools to fulfill it, that got “moved on” from.

Thats not how you win coming elections.  Midterms or Presidential.

Clinton Campaign Is Mistaken Officially to Support Wisconsin Recount

A recent article pointed out that the successful O’Neil strategy to contain and defeat Reagan was to give him rope, and to not defeat the agenda in the short term in Congress through control of the calendar.

I think that Hilary officially joining the Wisconsin recall campaign will seem like a sour grapes strategy.  If the recall delegitmates or, less likely reverses, the result, Clinton gains regardless of her formal position, I would think.

But by continuing to make it a Trump Versus Clinton narrative, you only delay the time at which the public will turn from its (non-plurality) choice.

If, even worse, this means that Clinton has not yet recognized how bad the family is as the carrier of the democratic and Democratic message, we are in for an even tougher time.  Sorry to be blunt.

A Whole New View of the Election: Its Simply The Old Story of CIA Versus FBI

The antipathy, competition, undercutting and pathological relationship between the FBI and the CIA has long been well known.

Now, for the first time, we simply have CIA allies (and others in the national security apparat) not only making statements with obvious potential impact, but going so far as to appear to run their own third party candidate to undercut one of the main party candidates.

Meanwhile, the FBI has been on an obvious and highly destructive campaign against the other main party candidate.

No wonder any result is going to seem illegitimate — although lots of others are to blame!


What kind of a Crime Has Many Thousands of Witnesses and No Complaint for Years

So, the private Clinton servers were up for years.  Presumably many thousands of people were getting emails from them, and even sending emails to them (I suspect even including Republicans).  They could presumably read sender headers.

No complaints (except concerns raised back to 2009 by the National Records and Archives administration about record keeping procedures).

Only at the end of Clinton’s tenure at State did a complaint get filed.

Does that make all who got or sent those emails co-conspirators — or does it mean that since it did not upset anyone for years that this is all massively overblown?

Some Uninformed Questions Playing Comey-Trump-Clinton All Out.

Why did the Comey story break only 11 days out?  Was someone holding the information lower in the FBI so that it only got to the Director with timing for maximum damage?  Was a lower level staffer suppressing it, and it got sprung somehow?

Could it be that the other shoe will drop next week with a Trump indictment for tax fraud, or a Ukraine or Putin enabler indictment of a Trump “associate”?

Will the rules for when investigations with political impact are discussed by DOJ and FBI going to be clarified and enforced?  The same question might be asked by Christie allies (although later data has not undercut the earlier action in that case.)

Why is the FBI not providing more information?

What happens if this all eventually comes to nothing and Clinton loses the election anyway?  Talk about an illegitimate result and a president lacking in legitimacy, electoral and political, as well as moral, intellectual and personal.

Suppose the Clinton loses, and the investigation goes on under a President Trump, and under the AG he has nominated.  What kind of confirmation hearings would those be, with Republican or Democratic Senate majorities?

Supposing Clinton wins, then we get the same kind of questions in a different kind of context.

Supposing the matter appears resolved during the transition, in a manner inconsistent with the electorate’s apparent assumptions, as inferred from their vote.  How on earth does that play out.

In short, anything other that full and immediate transparency, with hopefully a full resolution before a week from now, is likely to lead to a disaster.  Even if the matter can not be fully resolved by then, everyone should know everything, or we will simply have a potentially illegitimate result — regardless of who wins.  There also needs to be full transparency about why this broke now, and why, if that is the case, it can not be at least preliminarily be resolved in a week.

Trump Just Demolished the Republican Argument To Vote Republican Downballot for Republicans to Protect Against a President Clinton

The Republicans used to have a viable argument (although a wrong one) that people should vote for Republican Senate and House candidates to keep limits on a President Clinton.

Now Trump has effectively pointed out that it is much more important to get the Republicans out of the House and the Senate to minimize the chance that those bodies will enable a losing candidate Trump who refuses to accept the election result.


Getting Clinton’s Negatives Up May Be a Big Mistake for the GOP Down ballot

Its a campaign truism.  The way out for Republicans at risk because of Trump is to change the subject and attack Clinton.

That helps minimize, they hop the downside of Trump, and riles up the base into voting.  Maybe, although its not clear that the base needs any more riling up.

The unrecognized problem — and I think it may be a big problem strategically — is that the less generally Republican leaners can imagine voting for Clinton, the less they will consider voting and ticket splitting, and the more they will prefer to just stay home.

If your plan is to rely even in part on ticket-splitting, and its hard to imagine any even slightly endangered Republican not having a strategy that relies at least on ticket-splitting, then you are doing exactly the wrong thing.

If down ballot Democrats do better than expected this year, this may be one of the reasons.

Of course, the other strategy is to endorse Clinton, but that has its downsides too.  Its tough this year!