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.

The Key Question for Pollsters and Focus Groups –What Do You Mean by “Rigged”

Obviously, the belief that “the system is rigged” not only resonated strongly in this election cycle, but was extremely powerful.

It was brilliantly powerful in getting people to vote against their interests.

But the thing we have to do to lay the ground work for a better political alignment is to understand what people actually think they mean by the phrase.  More importantly, we have to find the way to communicate the truth about how it is “rigged” in a way that is true, that appeals to a wide a variety of current perceptions, and that will build support for true “un-rigging.”

Here is a list of some of the things that people think when they respond to the phrase.

“I no longer get the help I used to.”

“Government is helping people who are not like me, and not helping me and people like me.” (Five Star Euphemism Alert)

“Government is helping banks and companies to take away from me.”

“I pay more than my share of tax and get nothing for it.”

“Nobody listens to me and my friends.”

“Government helps bad people.” (Four Star Euphemism Alert, but could refer to corporate malefactors.)

“People in government are just out for themselves.”

“Nobody helps the people who need help.”

“The system is run by people very different from me who want to impose their values on me and make me do things I do not believe in.” (Three Star Euphemism Alert.)

“Money gets you everything.”

I am sure I am missing lots of important ones — please add in the comments.

After identifying the generalizations that appeal, then we need to look for the indicia that people use — what do they see that convinces them of these generalizations.

Once we understand what is going on, then the “Trump Monitoring” can be focused on what will disabuse people of their allusions and help them develop better understanding.  In other words, first we find the facts that counter not so much the generalizations(those get explained away), but the facts that counter the believed facts that support the generalizations.  That is harder to ignore.

Of course, some of the generalizations are true.  The lessons from those are far harder, because we have to develop policies and examples that make them untrue.  That’s going to be the real challenge for the coalition.



Politico Article — “Obama Loyalists Plot Trump Resistance”

I try to never use my blogs just to copy, but this one is too helpful to ignore.  Talks about the re-energizing of the Obama Network, and priorities.

The talks are all early, but a few broad themes have emerged. One is protecting the people most targeted by Trump’s policies and rhetoric. How to block a deportation force, for example? Could Vice President Joe Biden leads an anti-domestic violence campaign? Then there are the Obama policies that are most at-risk: the health law, his climate regulation. Finally, with Democratic ranks decimated not only at the federal level, but in statehouses as well, there’s a significant new emphasis on supporting alumni who are considering running for office.

.  .  .

Other ideas are emerging, many still in the brainstorming stage. At one gathering on Tuesday night in a Washington living room, about a dozen current and former Obama appointees discussed creating an “action tank” – like a think tank, but more ground game than Ivy Tower – with the working title “Center for a New American Response.” According to notes from one attendee, they also kicked around the idea of an equivalent of the PeaceCorps or Teach for America to plant service-oriented progressives in the rural areas Trump won, and a toolkit to help a new generation run for local office without waiting for an open seat or working through crusty party committees.

Maybe that will be Trump’s legacy.

How do we connect to them?

I am beginning to feel better already.  You?

Trump’s Voters and Putin’s Voters Are Similar in Many Ways – Strategic Implications

At the risk of overgeneralizing, subject to more careful analysis, and feeling badly for maybe stereotyping:

Trump and Putin voters are blue collar, in declining industries, with little hope of long term improvement.

Trump and Putin voters are racial majorities and think they should stay that way.

Trump and Putin voters expect the state to take care of them — although they say the opposite.

Trump and Putin voters often rely for a sense of self on the superiority of their country and religion.

Trump and Putin voters are suffering declining life expectancy, with significantly increasing suicide, drug above, overdose, and medical problems.

Trump and Putin voters tend to project the causes of their problems onto outsiders, those that they see as vulnerable.

Trump and Putin voters seem unable to vote their economic interests, or at least their long term ones.

It is the last one that raises the question whether a long term Democratic strategy of trying to get back the Midwest makes any sense.  The answer is that such a strategy only makes sense if enough of this population can go from seeing that the system is rigged to understanding who is rigging it and in what interest.

At Least We Ended Presidential Dynasties For Ever

There are very few silver linings here, but this is one.

The 2016 election saw the complete repudiation of the idea of presidential dynasties.

Not only did we get rid of the idea of a second Clinton presidency, regardless of its possible policy merits, we also surely saw off the Bushes.

In a supposed republic, that is good news.  Surely it will sink in that if you run a dynasty heir, you end up with all of their baggage and little of their benefits.  So, that, hopefully is that.


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!


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.