What Does Trump’s Assetion That the Democrats Should Have Won the Election Mean?

Yesterday, in his astonishing interview with NBC News: (NYT link)

Mr. Trump told Lester Holt of NBC News. “It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.”

What on earth does that mean?

  • That the American people support Democratic policies,
  • That the Democratic demographic advantage is overwhelming,
  • That the Republicans do not have good candidates,
  • That he was an unappealing candidate?
  • That he did not expect to win,
  • That he knows he is unready to be President?

Or, I suppose, it could just be that he is getting inside their minds and saying that the Democrats think that they should have won.  Frankly, that’s a psychological distinction too far for me to attribute to Trump.

Anyway, as things spin more and more out of control, as I am sure they will, we will have many more opportunities to observe and analyze Trump’s mental functioning, perhaps as authorized under the 25th Amendment.

 

 

Lobbying and Campaigning Rights for Nonprofits

So, if religious groups can have a tax exemption, but are not resticted in their campaign and lobbying activities, surely it must be unconstitutional to deny the same rights to nonprofit organizations.  That would both be content based discrimination and establishment of religion.

That might lead to more than Trump bargained for today.

Be careful what you wish for.

Polls Say Trump Voters Are Happy With Him — But We Know Trump Voters Can Not Easily and Reliably Be Polled

There has been a lot of reporting of how Trump has not lost much support of those who voted for him.

But do we know how reliable the self-reporting of prior voting behavior is.  I wonder if anyone has been checking if the self-reporting of Trump voting is consistent with the actual votes.

We know hat Trump voters are low education, we know that they are often hard to get to answer polls, and we suspect that they may be less prone to tell the truth (at least to pollsters.)

So there may be lots of hidden dissatisfied Trump voters out there.  I remember the moment during Watergate when Nixon’s reputation became so poisonous that more people remembered that they had voted against him than for him.

If this theory is right, it holds particular danger for Republlicans facing reelection in 2018, because it will make it harder to track the Trump voters whose reason for turning against a Republican incumbent is his or her support for Trump.

Worth keeping an eye on.

 

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.

Why Did Sessions Not Report His Russian Contact to the FBI?

According to the Washington Post:

One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator’s office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.

Given the context, I find it hard to believe that Sessions would not have told State, FBI, CIA or NSA about that contact.  Moreover, surely any sane politician would have written a “memo to file” as a future potential defensive tool.  I would have assumed that they one or more of the above would have known anyway.

I regard the apparent absence of both (or even just a failure to report them by now), as something close of consciousness of guilt — although I have no personal knowledge of such general procedures, or what he did.

This story is just not going to go away.

 

Any Innocent Administration Would Be Urging a Full Investigation to Repair Their Credibility

To be effective, a government has to be credible.  To be effective the Trump administration is desperately in need of a process that will both give in a breather in the short term, and credible proof of innocence in the long term about the whole Russia thing.

So they should be out there leading the establishment of such a process on investigation into the Russian scandal.  It would have to be set up so its product would be so solid and so credible that it was essentially unanswerable.

So why are they not doing so.  Well, there are three possible reasons.

  1. That they are so short term oriented that they do not understand this truth about credibiity.
  2. That they are in such chaos that they are unable to put any investigation together.
  3. That they are so guilty that the last thing they want is an investigation of any kind.

I will go with number three.  But if number two is true, we should see the investigation set up in a few weeks.  If number one is the reason, then it may take a bit longer, but wiser heads should prevail relatively soon.

Or perhaps most likely, all three could be true, in which case this story will play out much faster than we expect.

 

 

Will Harvard Have to Move to Canada? Will Google? Will New York City?

After yesterday’s evil, stupid and frightening Executive Order, and its chaotic, confused and terrifying so-called “implementation,” the question has to be asked whether currently US institutions like those listed above (Harvard, Google, New York City) will be allowed to operate according to their internationalist, intellectual, and truth-respecting values.  Because, if the answer is no, then they are going to start thinking about moving first certain operations, and then their leadership, to other countries.

For modern institutions, free flow of ideas, scholarship, thinkers, and contributors is critical, and a rational fair border flow policy is critical.  If a country can not offer that any more, then those organizations that make the country home will suffer massive competitive disadvantages.  And so will the countries from which those institutions then start to move.  Low tax rates only make a difference if you have income.

I am struck by the analogy to the state travel boycotts, and threats of boycott, that played such a role in the recent dis-empowering of homophobia.  Many states were forced to back down by those boycotts and threats of boycotts.  As time goes by, maybe countries will start to face the same dynamics.  It is no good pressuring a corporation to reduce job losses at an in-US plant if there is no intellectual property creating a product that will be wanted enough to keep the previously “saved” jobs producing anything.

Judicial intervention tonight makes this less immediately likely, but unless long term sanity is returned to government, leaders of such institutions will be forced to start to make contingency plans, or cease to be seen as international leaders.

Maybe the current spasms are the death throes of a long dying nationalistic international order, rather than an existential threat to the still emerging international one that has been developing ever since the end of World War II.

I hope that internationalist institutions will find a way to underline the stakes.

p.s. In a model statement, Harvard indeed has.  See here.